Ask HN: CS Degree, felony conviction, need not apply? - <AUTHOR> I am a convicted felon. No "explanation" field here. Explanation: http://pastebin.com/PfLcKyHj
I am also a graduate of a 4 year university with a degree in computer science. I have worked gainfully since I graduated (roughly 5 years ago) as a software developer for a variety of start-ups, and as a "contractor" whom was eventually hired full-time at a mid-sized business. Well some of the start-up jobs were less than "highly paid" as my career has advanced, I've easily bested all my friends and most of my family in pay and benefits.
In the start-up world it's easy to avoid the question because most small start-ups lack the infrastructure to perform regular background checks on perspective employees, and new-hires often come on a "word of mouth basis" so my attitude has always been: honesty is the best policy, when asked I'm always totally upfront. However, most don't ask.
My question is: I've recently been contacted by recruiters at much larger corporations (some of which I would very much like to experience and work for, internet-tech top-fivers like: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce, etc.). I also feel that my skills have reached a level where my candidacy is viable. I would like to add a job at these company's to my resume and hopefully while there make connections in the start-up world.
That being said, if I submit myself to these rigorous interviews, what should I expect when I ultimately have to disclose my felony conviction and "explain" it to a recruiter / hiring manager?
At this time there is a remote possibility that I could apply to have my record sealed in another 2-3 years depending on adjustments in state law. Should I wait to apply to this companies until after I see how the law changes?
##ratelimit from HN will respond when I can <comment><USER3> Tighten your explanation a bit:

I was arrested for selling marijuana to a roommate in the dorms while a freshman at [Name of School] in 200?. This was an especially difficult period for me; my father/mother had committed suicide the year before and I was having a difficult time coping with his/her death and being on my own at college for the first time. This led to me making a very poor choice, one that I regretted then and continue to regret today.

I agreed to plead guilty, and was given N months of probation with no jail time. I successfully completed my probation in 200? without incident.

It was a well deserved wake up call, one that helped to set me back on course. I completed my degree at [Name of School] and have been working in IT ever since.

You don't need to explain that the roommate was working for the police. You don't need to offer information that you were regularly selling. You don't want to call it narcotics. You don't want to mention that you were facing 8 years in prison. You don't want to use the word habit (if you must "to support my use/consumption"). If they ask if you were selling lots, deflect (who knows what "lots" is... you weren't Scarface you were a troubled kid just trying to get by). If you also got community service you should also mention it (N months of probation and N hours of community service). If you did something special for your community service (eg. worked with disadvantaged kids) you could mention that (if you just picked up trash on the highway I wouldn't).

Practice saying the explanation and writing it. You want it to sound natural... especially as it's the truth. It's embarrassing but frankly even for a position requiring trust (eg. handling money) I don't see your conviction as a serious problem. Note that if you still smoke you should consider stopping (or getting a prescription) as some larger companies require drug tests.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I agree. I think the version I gave was a bit more "theatrical" because I was writing it out for a non-employer.

And no I don't use illegal drugs - and am not a heavy drinker. I have coped with depression and anxiety with the help of psychotherapy and anti-depression drugs. Which have worked very well, and helped me lead a balanced and healthy life.

<comment><USER4> No. Don't mention depression or your treatment for mental illness or use of psychotropic medications. There is still serious stigma against mental illness.

<comment><USER5> People with a mental illness are covered under discrimination laws in the US. While it's probably a good idea to not disclose (in the US) before you have the job it's something that people need to think about.

The EEOC advice is here.

[http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/index.cfm](http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/index.cfm)

[http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's also worth noting that there is some movement towards preventing businesses from asking about convictions until after a conditional offer has been extended, and then putting some burden on them to demonstrate relevance before they rescind the offer. (So, under that rule, someone whose felony was embezzlement can be rescinded from a bank job, but a pot conviction shouldn't matter for a programming position.)

See [http://bantheboxcampaign.org/](http://bantheboxcampaign.org/) and e.g. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box- minneso...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/ban-the-box- minnesota_n_3240209.html) , among others.

<comment><USER7> I don't see why this is a good thing. One of the consequences of committing a crime is that your conviction becomes part of the public record.

I am all for trying to convince employers that certain past crimes are not relevant for employment, if that is really the case. But I don't see why the government should be forcing employers to ignore past convictions, or why employers should have to _prove_ that the information is relevant.

Of all the categories we might seek to protect, be it race, gender, religion, etc., past convictions strike me as the least worthy of protection.

<comment><USER8> I'm 50/50 on this. A pot conviction doesn't matter - a murder conviction might (depending on circumstances, I guess). Why should someone be shamed for life for something that isn't a big deal, and has no bearing on professional accomplishment/ambitions. If you think a pot conviction hinders someone from doing their job, then I think it's up to you to explain why.

If Person A has an engineering degree from Stanford and passes in-interview personality tests, and person B has the exact same degree and is just as likable/desirable as an employee, but person B has a one-time pot conviction record - then both people are still equally hirable in my mind. I just don't see the disconnect where that needs to be weighed at all in the hiring process.

<comment><USER7> You might have your own opinion on what information is relevant to an employer. However as a society, right now we only protect certain categories, like race and religion. An employer does not have to _prove_ that all information they use is relevant.

My question is why are we seeking to protect a category of people who have been placed in that category by a particularly fair and rigorous process? And if a particular crime is not a big deal, then it shouldn't be a felony in the first place!

As a moral principle, I don't see why, if you are allowed to judge a person based on their personality or character, you cannot judge them based on acts which by their nature reveal a lot about that person's character.

<comment><USER9> There are numerous moral reasons why such information should be protected. Firstly, the whole idea of completing a sentence is that he or she has paid their debt to society. If they are released and are looking for a job, they should be able to get that job on their own merits. We as a society should not allow discrimination based on crimes that in principle are already paid for. A job is a necessary part of being a member of society, we should not allow employers to filter candidates for arbitrary reasons, whatever they may be.

From the perspective of society, it is against societies interest to hinder a convicted person from obtaining meaningful employment. Having legitimate access to income is one of the mains ways that a person can become and stay a productive member of society rather than a drain as a criminal. Society should do everything in its power to encourage this. Eliminating this barrier to reintegration is an obvious choice.

Lastly, the assumption that the process is fair and impartial has been shown repeatedly to be false. At least one can argue that an unfair or disproportionate conviction is not permanent, but it becomes that when people are subsequently barred from full reintegration in society through extra- judicial processes.

<comment><USER7> I think one difference between us is that you see jobs as a resource that the government should regulate in order to maximize the social good, while I see employment as a private contractual agreement between the employer and employee, where the government should respect the freedom of the employer. Hence the high bar I set for government intervention. The current very limited protections against discrimination that the law provides, are closer to my view than to yours.

While the government should not punish a person who has served their sentence, convictions to become part of the public record. Since this is the case now, it is implicit that the consequences of this public record are also part of the "punishment".

On the social benefit of reintegration, there is also a social cost to giving people who have committed crimes special rights or privileges. Doing so removes some of the social stigma of crime that is part of the justice system.

On discrimination in the justices system, it would be good to provide some quantitative information on how much of the increased Black conviction rate is estimated to be a result of direct discrimination, and how much is a result of Black people committing more crime.

<comment><USER9> >The current very limited protections against discrimination that the law provides, are closer to my view than to yours.

What is your argument for government intervention in the current class of protected groups? How would it not also apply to convicts?

<comment><USER7> Personally I don't support current anti-discrimination laws but I think they have more justification than what you are proposing.

Race, gender, religion etc. are categories that one the one hand don't have an inherent relationship to a person's ability to do their job, and on the other hand, are things that are either beyond a person's control, or we value a person being able to choose freely.

In comparison, convictions are within a person's control (except false convictions), and we certainly don't value protecting this "choice". There is the issue of discrimination in the justice system, I don't see how this could be addressed except for reforming the justice system especially in relation to drugs.

And there is a clear relationship between past convictions and whether a person is suitable for a job. It relates directly to that person's moral character and attitudes towards crime that could directly impact their behavior as an employee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I apologize for not directly answering your question--I don't have any knowledge or opinion about what to expect from big companies--but I want to say that I consider it a minor miracle that I didn't serve time for various ultimately harmless but very illegal things I did when I was younger.

It's the same with my best friend. It's the same way with another close friend. We're all programmers, and we all work together at the same startup. We all did crazy things. We could all have criminal records, but don't, just due to chance.

The point is, please be sure you really want to work somewhere where you feel you have to explain yourself more than what you said in the pastebin. That's more than enough.

</comment><comment><USER11> Unfortunately, you can murder someone, rape a child, blow up a building or sell a plant that won't even be illegal in 10-20 years and they are equally horrible on paper.

I'd say you were convicted for selling marijuana and not lead with the term "felony".

</comment><comment><USER12> Getting your record sealed won't hurt, but there are plenty of other data sources that will still list the conviction - so anyone who does even a moderate background check will find out.

If I were you, my long term goal would be to get myself set up with my own consulting company. It will help to separate your personal history from your work history. Companies don't have felony convictions.

<comment><USER13> > Getting your record sealed won't hurt

Actually, it may. If someone runs a background check and sees a sealed record, it tells them that a record exists, but not the nature of the offense. They would probably therefore assume something worse than a marijuana conviction, which is what OP has.

This may vary by state based on what information remains available, but sealing the record MAY actually be worse than leaving it open.

Obligatory: IANAL.

Edited wording to clarify that this is a hypothetical employer, not what I myself would do personally.

<comment><USER14> > I would probably therefore assume something worse than a marijuana > conviction, which is what OP has.

...sigh. That just makes it worse for those of us that try to move on past our mistakes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Pretty serious conviction here - served six years in prison.

Had significant experience before incarceration, which helped me get a telecommute job within a month of release. Crappy pay (1/2 - 1/3 of industry standard). Kept getting additional gigs, all telecommute. Worked my way up to industry standard in short order. 4 1/2 years later I have all the work I can handle, and am limited by my own desire to work.

A few times background check concerns have popped up. I was 100% up front. I haven't seen it get in the way as a result - and my situation is far more serious than a drug conviction.

However, I have to be smart. I see a lot of juicy gigs that require clearance, or in other ways would be a concern. Just look the other way.

I can understand wanting the "high profile" employers, but I think the lower profile, the better. As has been mentioned, some companies simply cannot hire you. (In the same way that some apartment complexes can't offer leases to felons, as their particular liability insurance dictates)

tl;dr I have a serious felony and prison experience - I've built up a good development career working from home and laying low.

</comment><comment><USER16> One option is to apply for a pardon to the governor of your state.

If you can show the reasons why you were doing what you were doing (in short, repercussions of a parental suicide), show you did receive a degree, have people who can vouch for you now (including the work you have done and the value you have provided their business), you _might_ have a shot.

In other words, have you become a valued member of society worth erasing a felony conviction for? If it is erased, would your value to society increase or decrease? What has your character been like since? And most importantly, what potential political ramifications exist if your conviction were to be pardoned?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I have considered this. Again this is a little known legal avenue that is highly politically motivated- and even less well understood than the laws that are on the books around expungement / sealing in my state.

The only indication I have found any of these avenues is a single line statement on the governors website stating that I should "contact the governors office" if I have had at least 10 years since the date the conviction. Though I don't know if this is referring to the day I was arrested or the time of final disposition of court, or sentencing (either imposed or dismissed...due to my early dismissal)

As such I have tried to volunteer my time for legislators whom have advocated bills that flesh out these laws in hopes that they can point me in the right direction in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Are you in California, by chance? I'm making the assumption that you are ...

You made me curious and while googling I came across some information that seems to indicate that companies in California cannot go back further than seven years on a background check and cannot ask about convictions more than seven years ago.

You mention that it happened when you were a freshman and that you graduated roughly five years ago so I'm guessing you are past the seven year mark or, at the least, very close to it.

If that's the case, it sounds like you might be able to avoid the situation altogether.

<comment><USER18> > California cannot go back further than seven years on a background check and > cannot ask about convictions more than seven years ago.

No business is going to reasonably follow this. They use all sorts of background check services so an arbitrary number means nothing to them.

<comment><USER14> Actually, the background check company specifically cannot pass along convictions wherein the end of the sentence was more than seven years ago. If you read a HireRight report, it specifically mentions this. Any background check provider that supplies convictions older than seven years is liable under FCRA (with a few exceptions), and in California, you are entitled to your report after it is completed. You can connect the dots yourself.

<comment><USER18> There are numerous data collection companies and they're definitely not all following the rules on background checks.

Ever heard of conflicting information on reports between credit bureaus?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Some companies cannot hire felons. Companies that require PCI compliance and companies with secured data centers like Rackspace will often not hire felons as a policy. I'd hire you though. I hope someday after we've had enough of ruining people's lives in our never ending drug war we can get a general amnesty for all drug convictions for non-violent offenders.

<comment><USER14> > Companies that require PCI compliance and companies with secured data > centers like Rackspace will often not hire felons as a policy.

That is their choice and not required by either. I walked into secured data centers as a felon at PCI-compliant Linode. Rackspace does not hire felons due to their terms of service; their lawyers pointed me to the clauses regarding protecting customer information as the reason why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Drug laws are evil. Any sane person would not care about your felony. However, giant corporations have policies, so I'm not sure what the answer to your question is. I just wrote this for moral support.

</comment><comment><USER21> "In the start-up world it's easy to avoid the question because most small start-ups lack the infrastructure to perform regular background checks on perspective employees".

Umm no. You Google "Background check" and pay $30.

<comment><USER22> This must be unique to the US though, in other countries you have to go through quite a lot of red tape to be allowed such information, even as an employer.

<comment><USER23> In the UK unless the job is incredibly sensitive (prison officer, position of care etc) _or_ requires a security clearance background checks just don't happen.

They ask on your application and if you lie they can fire you for it but since they don't check it's kind of a don't ask/don't tell.

I also (think) you can have many crimes expunged after a period of time and those then only show up on enhanced checks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Personally speaking, I'd see it as evidence of entrepreneurial spirit and experience ;) I'd also hope that anyone knocking you back on those grounds weren't themselves users, because that would be rank hypocrisy.

However you weren't asking about me :)

Firstly, lawyer up. Get a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing and ask him or her what to do.

Secondly, try to see this from a risk management perspective, which is most likely how your prospective employers will approach it.

From their perspective, it's probably (but see 'lawyer up' above) immaterial to them on a daily basis if you're no longer dealing, and not going to turn up to work stoned or have a shootout with another dealer in the company carpark. _But_ imagine the fallout if you did. Imagine being the guy or girl who signed off on your hiring.

That's what's going through _their_ heads when considering your application, & that's what you need to mitigate.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do regularly consult with friends whom are law enforcement lawyers (DAs) and personal my personal representatives.

And I don't have any illusions about the concerns a perspective employer might have about the "worst case", so better not to take the risk.

I'm not at all at odds with reality, the frustration emanates mostly for me from a personal sense of vanity, and the situations where I've been declined and not offered an explanation if it was a technical deficiency or personal preference against a perceived "risk"

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Seattle makes it harder for companies not to hire felons[1]. Not just for government job, for any job.

[http://crosscut.com/2013/06/11/seattle-city- hall/114930/city...](http://crosscut.com/2013/06/11/seattle-city- hall/114930/city-council-changes-rules-employee-background-che/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Without getting on a soapbox about how the criminal justice system only guarantees repeat customers...

I'd definitely retain a lawyer to pursue expungement, but I'd ask them about what new records seeking an expungement can create. For example, ten years ago when you were convicted, the records probably weren't as likely to be digitized and searchable. Now, practically every state uses e-filing, has public access tools, and sells filings to third parties who SEO it up, guaranteeing it to be more public than it is now (just like shady mugshot websites).

In reading your other comments, it sounds like you start a conversation with volunteer work, talking about your testimony about it in front of your legislative body... I think that's the right approach. Possibly you could broaden the topic of your legislative involvement to other areas beyond criminal expungement, though.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have direct experience with the companies you have listed, which I don't see elsewhere in this thread; I'll give you a timeline of my career so you can get a feel for what you're up against. In 2007, I was convicted of Interference with or Disruption of an Educational Institution, a class 6 felony in the state of Arizona. Since then I have had a steady career, with its share of bumps, but it is possible.

In 2009, I found work at Linode. The founder of Linode is an understanding guy and I was up front about my situation. It was also more unique because my career up to that point had been broadcast television and radio; when I was convicted, I was an on-air technical director at a Phoenix news/talk station. So I had no demonstrable work experience in computing. I was given a unique interview and passed, so I spent the next two years and change working at Linode. My situation was not a secret to anybody at Linode.

Once I had that experience on my resume, I translated that to Foursquare, where I worked for a year and a half. Again, same story: I was completely up front with everybody I spoke to about the situation, and my immediate manager only wanted to know the details out of curiosity. I do not keep my conviction a secret, even from my colleagues and those around me. It is a part of me and I am no longer embarrassed by it.

After Foursquare is where the tragedy begins, and the salient part of what you're asking about.

Earlier this year, I courted and finally accepted an offer to work at Google. I disclosed the conviction to Google right at the beginning of the process. The recruiter assured me it shouldn't be an issue[1], but they do something sneaky: they offer you employment _then_ perform the background check, and write their offer so that the offer hinges upon the results of the background check. Everybody else I've worked at has had this reversed (including my current employer), so this was a first for me. They let you see the Google offer and get excited, then begin the background check.

The results of the background check arrived very soon. I want to say by the following Monday. I followed up with another e-mail, and Dan said the results go directly to company leadership. I heard nothing for _two months_ , even after I began work. To reiterate that, I worked for two months at Google while Google had the results of the background check in hand. After two months, Google scheduled a meeting half an hour in the future on my calendar and terminated my employment. Ben Treynor and Ben Lutch, two higher-ups in the SRE organization, fired me having never met me. My immediate manager appealed but Ben Lutch refused to reconsider or even speak with me.

Considering I know of some very public felons that work at Google, I can't help but feel shafted, but it taught me a valuable lesson about how to negotiate during the offer process regarding a felony. From Google, I courted three companies:

\- Facebook was honest and said with a felony it was unlikely. The recruiter did everything possible to basically talk me out of continuing the process once I disclosed it.

\- LinkedIn suddenly filled the position once I disclosed it, even though the position remains open on the Web site and it is a general position.

\- Apple resulted in a closed offer. I was up front with Apple as I was Google, and I requested that we put all the horses in order before we move forward. They were understanding of that, given my Google experience, and I am happy to report that I am far better off at Apple than I was Google. I'm not going anywhere; Google is an extraordinarily passive aggressive culture and I could tell I wasn't going to be happy there anyway. Apple also compensates me better than Google did. The side benefit of my long-term goal at Apple is that by the time I'm considering moving elsewhere (if I am at all) the felony will have long passed the seven-year mark. I'll probably have long since set it aside in Arizona (Arizona has no "sealed", just "set aside").

Two other highlights of my career to show you mistreatment of felons by companies:

\- Rackspace booked a flight for me to San Francisco when I still worked at Linode, then I took time off from work to fly out and they cancelled the flight the evening before with about 12 hours to go once I disclosed the felony conviction. They pointed to their terms of service with their customers.

\- 1010data, a competitor to the Foursquare offer, called me in for a meeting during my offer process. They were vague as to what the meeting was about. When I was brought into the room I discovered most of the board of the company as well as various senior leadership, and I was grilled about my 'prank' felony for better than a half hour by investment banking types in their upper forties and fifties. I wish I would have known that was coming. To their credit, they did the research and still extended an offer, but that meeting left a bad taste in my mouth.

Your best advice, which I received in the thread when I discussed this before[2], is just to be up front and explain it and own your felony. I promise.

[1]: [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6121606/assurance.pdf](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6121606/assurance.pdf)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245316](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6245316)

<comment><USER9> I remember reading this story on here before, and I'm glad to see everything worked out for you! Personally I think its terrible the treatment we give convicted felons, they're supposed to have paid their debt to society, right? So why are we denying them the very means to keep themselves on the right course and productive? It's absurd. Society should not be in the business of handing out life sentences outside of the judicial process.

<comment><USER14> The day I was sentenced and began probation was the same day Mike Tyson began his probation for the cocaine charges in 2007. I sat across from him in the probation office. While his lawyers talked to the probation people, I made eye contact with him and realized that while we both were convicted of felonies, I was going to have a much harder time going forward than he was. (Granted, he has a pretty tough life with addiction.)

If you're famous, felonies are just an inconvenience. If you're middle or upper class, felonies are a big roadblock to a career that require great perseverance and stress. If you're lower class, a felony is a death sentence unless you turn to crime. 83% of offenders who violate probation or parole were unemployed at the time, and only 13% of companies surveyed in one study said they'd even consider applications from felons. I'd wager if our attitudes about felony convictions changed, a lot of crime in the inner city would disappear in the long term.

What a lot of companies don't know is that under certain circumstances, employment of felons can be a tax benefit. UPS famously uses this.

<comment><AUTHOR> jsmthrowaway - I'd be very interested in corresponding with you on a personal basis because of your experience - given I can't verify your identity from this - post your source address here if you'd like, and I'll get back to you. Otherwise thanks a million for taking the time.

Bitmessage: BM-NBeSoXNvHgqXKXVNykt51LayfXEJz1Yz

<comment><USER14> You didn't look very carefully at an attachment, then, which includes my name and e-mail address. I only created a throwaway because my (very) old HN account is set to be usable again in 2055.

<comment><AUTHOR> emailed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I used to work for a large background investigation company.

The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) generally (there are exceptions) limits pre-employment background checks to convictions within the past seven years. Although sentencing can bring this into scope. So for example if you were convicted 10 years ago, but were sentenced to 4 years probation that conviction could still be used against you. State laws can impose further limits on background checks. Depending on how recently this conviction occurred and your state of residence it may not even be an issue.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, the FCRA rules interest me. Though they don't seem to be universally applied - and god knows if it would be at all enforceable without a great deal of litigation that is ultimately not worth-while to undertake.

I would be interested in learning more about these laws. Do you have any particular documentation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think (my) common sense tells me those large corporation have some many applications that they will turn down anyone for any reason and in your situation they would want to avoid, if ever asked, answering "yes" if someone ask "do you have felons working for you" [1]. I don't work for HR, but I could see the point where decision-making person is turned down by this, as I am sure they cherry-pick to the extreme (they do not hire on "we extremely need" basis, rather "we hire if someone has amazing skills and we can always use them").

If I were you, I wouldn't disclose until asked for, because this does not affect your work output, or your footprint on society. If you were a rapist or psycho then for society sake yes you should say something before you flip over and machine-gun half of Googleplex (but that's not your case). If asked for, I would be honest and straightforward (your pastebin story seems you were young and stupid, something we all go through (some caught and recorded in the system, most not)). Just be honest and explain them your situation and leave rest to them and God (if you believe in one).

[1] I sympathize with your story. The longer I live on US soil (I am sure this is not narrowed down to US), the more I become aware jails and prisons are filled in with innocent people (I'm serious) or otherwise we all should be jailed for this or another reason.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER29> as someone with no degree and a criminal record for something similar (probably worse in fact - being found in possession with some 250g (9oz) of cannabis - which here at the time counted as supply due to quantity) i can tell you first hand that it shouldn't be a serious problem for you.

i would add though that in most of the civilised world this is not an issue. the US law regarding drugs is almost universally viewed from the outside as being massively unjust.

(again i find myself saying 'except for the US' when discussing the 'civilised' world - this is tiresome)

the truth is that people are quite aware of right and wrong for the most part - but many areas of the law are not - your employer might make their own decision in this regard, even if they are a big company - unless they can afford to reject the best they need to consider drop outs and criminals. a quick look at the 'elite' of todays tech world shows a bunch of drop outs and criminals...

i know that here in the UK i was open every time i applied for a job about my conviction - even though it is spent it still comes up and becomes known. it never caused me a problem, and its an interesting conversation at worst... this included some pretty large companies, Virgin Media, Codemasters and J Sainsbury to name a few. it wouldn't surprise me if their official policy on such things is to not care - and I can imagine Google, MS, Amazon etc. will have similar properties - the fact that Bill Gates has a record is quite a popular piece of trivia for example, it would be hypocritical for MS to have employment strategy that would rule out hiring the next Gates... surely?

</comment><comment><USER30> Some of the companies you named explicitly exclude marijuana related offenses from the thing you have to declare, if they are small and old offenses, basically anything related to personal use more than 2 years ago. This seems to apply to you.

That being said, be honest and ask your recruiter if it's a problem, it's better to be upfront than to get screwed because of a background check.

</comment><comment><USER31> Since it's on your record (until 7 years?) then you seem to have some options limited. In this case, maybe choose one as a litmus test?

In the end, a big part of the interview is salesmanship and you'll need it for whatever way you tell your story. How about interview with a few other companies that are not on your big list. In fact, find something like an insurance company or a place you know will freak out. Use those experiences for your final test.

<comment><USER31> Also to add - after re-reading your post and this part: " I've easily bested all my friends and most of my family in pay and benefits."

... it sounds like you're doing fine without working at Google/Apple. It's entirely possible you are already a success but don't think so? Maybe you see it as a way to prove something? Personally, I'd like to know what that feels like to introduce who I am based on an instantly recognizable company.

But even if I do end up in one of those companies someday, I like what Tyer Durden says: "you are not your job". That said, there's a ton of awesome companies to work for other than them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. And the reason I chose to bring this up today was, I was contacted by a recruiter at a company that is very small and in a space that I was very interested in. However, after a rather positive reception, I was called back by their recruiter and told that they didn't feel that I could be a "viable" candidate because of my background. There was no explanation.

I contacted the company's CEO directly for an explanation, going over the 3rd party recruiter. I have not heard back from him, though I don't expect to. I know he doesn't "owe" me an explanation. However, all I can do is work harder to better my skills and make myself an invaluable asset.

And yes - it's something of a "selfish" motivation, vanity as well. The same way I proved that I was capable of not only graduating from school after being expelled but getting a technical degree, and being a functional citizen despite of coming from a background that predisposed me to this (physical and mentally abusive childhood household, single parent home, suicide, etc.) It's easy to hold yourself to a "different standard" than the money.

Also sometimes I feel like "start-ups" have a tendency to clamor for engineers whom have a Google or a Facebook on their resume as they might not know about hiring, and assume these companies have 'vetted' this person for skills - <USER2> makes you stand out.

<comment><USER32> I'm going to agree with another comment on this thread: the best opportunity for you is to set yourself up as a one man consulting company, and proceed that way. If eventually you get a pardon or get your record sealed, then employment won't be a problem anymore, but as it stands, contracting might be your best opportunity.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have worked as a contractor before. I do enjoy the freedom and an "easy" fallback, so I'm far from going hungry. I would probably make more money as an independent consultant than I would within one of these institutions.

That being said, institutions have a certain degree of "notoriety" that perhaps appeals to me for whatever selfish reason. I just wanted to have this conversation before I went further down that road only to discover a dead end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Mitnick and many other hackers have jobs, their crimes are directly related to their job, yours is not related at all to your job. Don't worry at all about it.

That said lighten the charge up a bit if asked say something like, yeah I got caught with a joint in college, don't say I have a felony conviction. Talk to your lawyer and he will probably come up with an even better sounding explanation.

Maybe something like using a friends prescription drugs, etc.

<comment><USER34> _That said lighten the charge up a bit if asked say something like, yeah I got caught with a joint in college, don 't say I have a felony conviction. Talk to your lawyer and he will probably come up with an even better sounding explanation._

The fact that he got a felony conviction for a first offense suggests that it was more than just a joint (he says that the quantity in his possession would mean an 8 year minimum sentence). Looking at the federal sentencing guidelines ([http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2...](http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2d1_1.htm)) and sentencing chart ([http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/Se...](http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2011_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/Sentencing_Table.pdf)), it seems like he would have to have quite a large quantity of marijuana to get that much time for a first offense (e.g. 1 KG of marijuana on a first offense would only give you 6 months minimum).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it was my understanding that a conviction of more than 112 grams (4 oz) of a schedule 1 controlled substance with intent to distribute comes with a mandatory sentencing requirement. This was roughly 8 years ago, so I'd have to check with my lawyers. However, it was my understanding as well that the DAs office had made me what they considered to be a "reasonable offer" and that I should not attempt to "push back harder" at a risk of having the offer rescinded or declined - and risk a prison sentence. The DAs I have spoken too since than are typically dumbfounded by the severity of my sentence given my lack of criminal history. So I guess I was just unlucky.

<comment><USER34> You weren't unlucky, you just had bad legal advice. There is a reason 95% of cases get settled...the DA doesn't want to waste time in court and risk losing. So they threaten you with some excessive prison term to scare you into taking what seems like a good deal. Your lawyer should have seen through that, or maybe he was inclined to get it over quickly as well? A good lawyer could have gotten the intent to distribute part thrown out or at least gotten a jury to ignore it given that it was orchestrated by the police. You likely could have gotten it reduced to a misdemeanor possession and gotten just community service on your first offense.

<comment><AUTHOR> I continue to follow and occasionally contact the lawyers I had represent me. I do feel I had adequate representation. Again there were plenty of opportunities for me to "refuse" to "take an offer". All of my legal rights were respected. That being said, DAs have minimum mandatory sentencing as a "hammer" to incentivize a plea bargin - and keep most cases from completing the full legal recourse.

The trade off was my lawyers could work as hard as they could to find legal loopholes, to attempt to get a judge or jury to convict on a lesser charge, however, simple possession isn't easy to create a reasonable doubt, and the jury and judge would not have any sentencing discretion so much so as I understand the way the law is written.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can you get your record sealed? Then you can at least legally pretend it didn't happen.</comment>


Ask HN: Best certifications in 2017 - <AUTHOR> I might pursue some certifications in my free time. The certifications I'm considering are AWS Certified Solutions Architect (http://amzn.to/22V3swr), Google Cloud Architect (http://bit.ly/2nXSANz), and PMI Project Management Professional (http://bit.ly/2aj09Ln). Any other certifications worth considering? <comment><USER2> Can you clarify why you're pursuing them?

I find the certificates you should go for depends on whether you're looking to a) just learn or b) impress recruiters. Some certificates are mutually exclusive in that regard.

It may also be good to understand what industry you're currently in.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a software engineer. Given how massive AWS is, I'd like to learn more about everything it has to offer. Plus it looks great on paper. On the other hand, I find Google Cloud CLI/UX to be much more intuitive. The product management cert just stood out as something I'd be interested in, and adds some variety. I feel it would be a shame to limit ourselves to technical certs.

<comment><USER2> If you're suggesting your certificate quest is more about learning than the certificate, then I would suggest you keep books in mind too. The reason being, certificate courses are normally aimed at teaching you enough info to pass a specific exam. Whilst books will typically be broader.

And for what it's worth, in my experience, certificates (in the context of recruitment) are more often used as a gatekeeper.. aside from a few exceptions, such as some of the Cisco certs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I took the AWS Cert; now preparing for Google.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which AWS certs? Associate, or professional level? How long from when you began preparing to passing the exams?

<comment><USER4> I took the Udemy prep class but haven't taken the exam. I don't work for them or anything but I found it to be a pretty good class. Like 16 hours but you can speed the videos up. I think you can finish the course in 2-3 days and be prepared to pass the exam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> PADI Open Water

</comment><comment><USER6> The AWS Certified Solutions Architect certs are great. Note: lasts 3 years max.

</comment><comment><USER7> OSCP is excellent.</comment>


Show HN: Music Library – CC music you can use for YouTube videos - <AUTHOR> Problem: I like making YouTube videos, but finding music that is licensed for use is hard. There are plenty of paid options out there that are very good. But I don't make money from my videos, so I find it hard to justify spending $X per month.
Solution: My brother and I created a YouTube channel to collect and publish all the best music that you is free to use. Most is Creative Commons or copyright free.
We setup a pretty intense set of automations to make it happen. We go from SoundCloud to Zapier to Google Sheets to CSV to AfterEffect plugin to bash script to upload to YouTube.
Check it out if like quality music, or you are looking for a song you can use in any video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KneNJqJEEyE <comment><USER2> that looks very cool.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What NLP features would you find useful (pay for)? - <AUTHOR>

I am a co-founder of news startup called Euraeka. The site can be found at http://www.euraeka.com and I have posted about it here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=670844
The bottom line is that given the nature of the startup I had to implement a number of text processing routines using NLP techniques. I am thinking of developing an NLP API with those features for people to build upon. Here is the list I currently have in production:
1) Text extraction: i.e. given a URL or the actual HTML, strip all unnecessary junk and return the raw English text. This routing can also parse text into sentences, and words/frequency hashes. Stemming is also available.
2) Tagging: i.e. extract the top N representative words.
3) Text summarization: automatically extracts the top N most representative sentences for a given article. Basically automatic text summarization.
4) Cognitive fluency - i.e. a numerical decsription (range 0 to 1) of how difficult is to comprehend a given text.
5) Author intelligence - i.e. a numerical description (range 0 to 1) of what is the estimated verbal IQ of the author of the text.
6) Named Entity Recognition and Extraction - i.e. given a text, mark all entities in it that represent a person, place, or event. Examples would be this sentence: "Secretary <person>Clinton</person> is expected to <event>visit</event> <place>Pakistan</place> to discuss ongoing military cooperation".
7) Semantic similarity between two texts: i.e. a process that given two texts returns a similarity measure on how semantically close the texts are. This is NOT a simple word overlap comparison. This takes into account context similarity which is much more powerful. For example a simple word similarity measure would return no similarity between the text "Senator X visited Pakistan" and "Senator Y visited Afghanistan". However the semantic similarity would return a high number based on the context that both sentences are about similar political figures visiting neighboring countries related in terms of the war on terrorism.
8) Typing effort: i.e. a measure on how difficult was the text to type: i.e. a physiological measure that gives an estimate on how much effort went into typing the text. For instance words that requires typing keys that are far from each other on the keyboard are harder to type then words with keys close to each other.
9) Text mood classifier: i.e. automatic classification on positive/negative mood of the text.
10) Text style classifier: i.e. automatic classification on subjectivity/objectivity of the the text.
11) Topic classifier: i.e. automatic classification of text into general topics like business, politics, science, technology, etc.
So my question is - which ones of those do you think would be worth exposing into an API? Any of those have potential as premium service? Do you have any additional ones to suggest that I can implement? <comment><USER2> I've seen a need for both ad hoc (submitting text to you one complete posting at a time) and real-time (chat streams, high-volume forums) handling of text for many of these, plus censorship: both detection (does this text contain banned words) and processing (manipulate the banned words) in multiple languages.</comment>


Putting an end to Retadup: A malicious worm that infected hundreds of thousands - <AUTHOR> https://decoded.avast.io/janvojtesek/putting-an-end-to-retadup-a-malicious-worm-that-infected-hundreds-of-thousands/ <comment><USER2> > we can see that the malware authors mined 53.72 XMR (~4,200 USD at the time > of publishing this article) during the near month that the above address was > active.

Anyone a little surprised by how small the profits are?

With control over 850,000 infected machines with an average of 2.94 cores each, I expected him to do something that will make him much more than a regular software engineering day job.

<comment><USER3> Part of the reason might be that the malware was designed to be benign and not use all available resources

<comment><USER4> > benign

For the computers running on renewable power (Costa Rica, maybe?), it would truly be benign and not just stealthy. Long live green PoW!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The authors probably weren't sure where they stood in the tabs versus spaces > argument so both tabs and spaces were used in the controller. Sometimes, the > indentation of source code was so bad that it would enrage even the most > forgiving software engineers.

absolutely barbaric

</comment><comment><USER6> > The Gendarmerie also obtained a snapshot of the C&C server's disk from its > hosting provider and shared parts of it with us so we could start to reverse > engineer the contents of the C&C server.

That's surprising. Would full disk encryption even help to counter this ?

<comment><USER4> It depends on how the server was hosted. If it was on a cloud, the provider could have suspended the vm and slurped the encryption key directly from memory.

Bare metal would have been a bit harder, but still possible by probing the memory bus.

One could counter this by storing the disk encryption key in a hardware enclave (e.g., SGX).

<comment><USER7> Or you know, just copy the entire drive while the machine is running....

<comment><USER8> That would not help you, since the contents on the disk are encrypted. You need to get the key from RAM while the server is turned on AND mirror the disk. Doing just the mirror will not help you.

<comment><USER7> The copy uses the OS's system calls to transfer data. Thus it will definitely decrypt. If the OS can function, it can read the decrypted data.

An Linux OS with full disk encryption can easily be copied while running as root with a simple rsync. Same with Windows.

<comment><USER8> Yes, but you need access to the OS, which means you need a login exploit AND privilege escalation exploit, or a hardware-based backdoor or to mess with the RAM bus while the computer is on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ga-vu Source with technical details: [https://decoded.avast.io/janvojtesek/putting- an-end-to-retad...](https://decoded.avast.io/janvojtesek/putting-an-end-to- retadup-a-malicious-worm-that-infected-hundreds-of-thousands/)

Saved you a click

<comment><USER6> I'm confused, that's the article linked

<comment><USER9> probably when he wrote the comment, it was redirecting to another article</comment></comment></comment>


What time do the YC applications acceptance/rejection emails go out? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> In 2012 when I was rejected we got it at about 5:10 PM EST

</comment><comment><USER3> My guess is after 11pm EST.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's already way past 11pm EST.

<comment><USER4> umm...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whenever they send it is when the emails go out. The exact time varies.

</comment><comment><USER6> rejections are out

<comment><USER7> Yup, rejected:(

<comment><USER6> I hope you got as much out of the application process as we did. It was great to fill out the application and think deeply about our company. And we also took the opportunity to practice our pitching. Overall a great experience. It was also nice to know that someone out there took the time to watch our application video. That's about as much as we could ask for.

As YC readily admits, they are often wrong. I hope they are wrong about you and your company. Good luck!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does your codebase have much technical debt? - <AUTHOR> And, as a programmer, do you constantly do the work to pay down technical debt as you go, or do you just leave it to accumulate? <comment><USER2> Currently working on a 10+ year old enterprise system where some downstream components are closer to 20 years old. Massive amounts of technical debt. Thankfully my primary work is with a component that's <8 years old, with most relevant code being only a few years old. That being said, with any of these components there's sadly a ton of tech debt. Doing what I can to reduce it, but so much of it is interconnected it's frustratingly difficult to refactor anything without refactoring external systems it works with, as well. Doing what I can for the time being.</comment>


Regin: Nation-state ownage of GSM networks - <AUTHOR> https://securelist.com/blog/research/67741/regin-nation-state-ownage-of-gsm-networks/ <comment><USER2> Curious; Symantec's report said the RC5 encryption was performed in CFB mode, but this is not the case. Instead, we have a weird combination of CBC and CFB, with CFB being used solely for the last block (instead of padding or ciphertext-stealing). This has the look of seriously legacy code.

This seems to be a very old mode: I have trouble finding references to it with less than 20 years. This mode is in [1, pg. 151] and [2, pg. 77], as far as I can find, both of which were published in 1982. [2] also introduced ciphertext stealing, albeit a bugged version [3, §6].

[1] [http://faculty.nps.edu/dedennin/publications/Denning- Cryptog...](http://faculty.nps.edu/dedennin/publications/Denning- CryptographyDataSecurity.pdf)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Cryptography-Dimension-Computer- Securi...](http://www.amazon.com/Cryptography-Dimension-Computer-Security-A- Implementation/dp/0471048925) [sorry, no PDF link]

[3] [http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/steal.pdf](http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/steal.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> How did they get to these GSM stations from the infected windows systems ?

Do BSC/BTS typically have IP-accessible configuration ?

Regardless of how they connected (I thought SS7 ...) wouldn't there be a login to access the switch BSC controls ... how would the malware have that ?

I don't understand how the malware running on the windows system executed the commands on the BSC.

<comment><USER4> The BSC has several interfaces. One of them is the APG, used for Operation & Maintenance. It's a Windows module, accessible by IP. The APG serves as a gateway to the node's core via MML (Man-Machine Language), the instructions to operate the node.

<comment><USER3> So if you're running heavy equipment in a nuclear refining operation, you use microsoft windows to run your heavy equipment (centrifuges).

If you're a mobile network operator, you use microsoft windows to access and administer the base stations out in the field.

Pray tell: how important or sensitive does something have to be before someone finally asks "hmm ... maybe we shouldn't use microsoft windows for this" ?

<comment><USER5> _If you 're a mobile network operator, you use microsoft windows to access and administer the base stations out in the field._

It doesn't change much because the base station software probably has more security bugs than Windows.

<comment><USER6> You don't normally browse random websites through the base station administration software, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The module names "legspin" and "willischeck" refer to the sport of Cricket.

<comment><USER8> I don't think any of this is strictly cricket :-)

I didn't know about that relation for "willischeck", but since both NSA and GCHQ have used this, while I don't recognise those covernames, I'm guessing therefore those may well be Cheltenham's, whereas U_STARBUCKS (UNITEDSTARBUCKS?) is probably Fort Meade's.

Newbies need a reminder about meaningless covernames. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > "Finally, the word 'shit' appears in many places throughout the code and > modules."

Someone's boss is gonna be peeved! (Also, this would be a good indicator of a native English speaker developing the software; I doubt most developers put curse words into their code in a non-native language)

I don't find the GSM attacks unusual or interesting. Sure, it might be new for an Internet worm, but government-sponsored orgs have been pushing attacks on infrastructure like GSM networks since the L0pht days (though back then I think satellites were more in vogue), and they're constantly looking for new ways to infiltrate foreign networks of any type. This just shows someone's pet research project from a decade ago made it out of the lab.

It's also interesting to note that while this is useful for nation-states, they're not necessarily developed directly by a nation-state, and there could be multiple organizations using the same malware package. One way to see multiple independent actors using the same package would be to look for different cryptographic keys, C&C servers, and discrete distributed victim- networks.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am surprised that the data files that are meant to be sent to the C&C aren't encrypted with a public key so only the intended recipients can decrypt them. This would thwart discovering what information had already been extracted after an infection was discovered.

</comment><comment><USER11> The remarkable delay in reporting these findings is deliberate?

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady Normally reading something like this wouldn't interest me as it would be over my head but I found this fascinating. Thanks for posting it. It sounds like it's been known about for several years - why is it only being talked about now?

</comment><comment><USER12> So according to the timestamps it's pretty clear it's only the US, not UK nor Israel, who developed this software.

<comment> k-mcgrady Could you explain how you're coming to that conclusion?

<comment><USER13> The timestamps they found are more or less US business hours.

<comment> k-mcgrady I thought that but I think it's a big assumption that these people work business hours.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google axing innocent bystanders in content farm war? - <AUTHOR> http://www.thoughtstoblog.com/post/3551114847/so-apparently-google-thinks-that-view140-com-is-a <comment><USER2> I do some work with a Bible search site that saw its traffic drop dramatically right around the time that Google implemented some of these changes. My conjecture is that the site was penalized because it had similar content (the Bible itself) as other sites.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pages crawled is a strange graph to post. The dramatic dropoff makes me think you have a crawling problem, not that google pegged u a content farm. Is google simply not crawling content farms? No they are ranking them lower but still crawling them.

<comment><USER4> I agree with this. I have had many sites deindexed due to being thin affiliate sites using the same affiliate feeds that tons of other sites use. They still get crawled. Also, I have had sites go through a huge drop off in bot activity and still keep whatever rankings those sites had. Bot activity is cyclical. I don't think you can make a direct correlation between bot activity and ranking.</comment></comment>


Bank Strategies and Tech Valuations - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-08/bank-strategies-and-tech-valuations

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted this because there have been a fair number of articles lately about rachets, liquidation preferences and unicorn pricing.

There is a paper that is linked to that is a great read: [https://www.fenwick.com/Publications/Pages/The-Terms- Behind-...](https://www.fenwick.com/Publications/Pages/The-Terms-Behind-the- Unicorn-Valuations.aspx)

> The protections, known among investors as structuring or ratcheting, can > inflate a unicorn's indicated valuation 10 percent to 25 percent, according > to Rick Kline, a lawyer at Goodwin Procter whose firm does legal work on > start-up and initial offering financings.

The issue at hand is that late stage, or Mezzanine, funding rounds tend to push up valuations whit the down side of ratchets for the private equity firms.

The private equity firms don't mind the valuation as they have downside protection. The founders have their large ownership percentage, its the employee's who are last in line to reap the benefits who stand to loose the most in these types of deals.</comment>


I'm a Google Glass skeptic and think it'll be the next Apple Newton - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.co/2013/03/06/im-a-google-glass-skeptic-and-think-itll-be-the-next-apple-newton/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=Anuj+Adhiya&utm_campaign=Anuj+Adhiya

<comment><USER2> I mostly agree. There is one use case I've seen and that's taking fast photos when you can't fumble with a phone.

When I'm driving around, I always notice things that I would love to report to the city or code enforcement like a streetlight that is out or a dumped mattress or an abandoned house with grass 2 feet high.

I forget by the time I get home and I don't want to pull over to make a note. Google Glass would be perfect to just press a button and take a picture with the coordinates encoded in the image. Maybe also a voice memo attached.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely.

I'm a skeptic for a completely different reason. I think wearables are just a blip on the road to implantables. Irrespective of how complicated that makes the ethics/politics/social implications etc, I don't see how that's where wearable technology ultimately doesn't land up.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: If you were buying a laptop now, what would you buy, and why? - <AUTHOR> Bonus questions:
What laptop do you currently use? Which OS do you have installed? What do you use your laptop for?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Dell XPS 13. I like smaller laptop and this one, while being a 13'', is closer to a traditional 12''.

I had a previous edition 2/3 years ago and was happy with it. Plus it has very good support for Linux.

</comment><comment><USER3> XPS Developer Edition would be what I would buy now. I currently don't use a personal laptop (I have a couple of old ones not in as much use though), but only a Thinkpad W550s my employer provides.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have (and love) a Thinkpad X1 Yoga, which is expensive but really nice... I run Arch linux on it....</comment>


Peculiarities of Video Console Pricing - <AUTHOR> https://www.stevenbuccini.com/console-wars <comment><USER2> _The second key is that video game developers go where the gamers are._

No, they don't. They go where the money is. That isn't the same thing. To make a AAA game you have to either develop it to be multi-platform, or you have to cover the profit you'd get from platforms you don't release on by getting a fee for making a game exclusive. Sometimes a developer will write for one platform and then license out the game to another developer to port, but that's basically the same thing as just having two teams, just with slightly lower risk and lower profit from successes.

That's only for developers that are independent though. Sony and Microsoft own a lot studios. That's where the majority of exclusives come from.

What gamers want is a _distant_ after-thought.</comment>


Flickr Co-founder Unveils Her New Startup: Hunch - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/flickr_co-founder_unveils_her_new_startup_hunch.php <comment><AUTHOR> This could possibly be the start of something huge, if you just look beneath the surface a bit. In effect, the users of this site will be validating a large number of machine learning algorithms.

Let's say you are a large internet advertising company _cough_ Google _cough_ and you are trying to customize your suggestions. You look at what you know about any given user (their IP, geographical location, recent searches, keyword that get used in their recent emails, etc) and formulate your assumptions in terms of questions in a decision tree. You can then use Hunch.com to test your results (since Hunch allows users to "correct" their answers).

You can also use it the other way around (and this is where monetization comes in). If all goes as planned, within a few months Hunch.com will have a LOT of information about about people decide what to do. For instance "People that give answer X,Y and Z to questions A, B and C think the best car for them is XPTO model". How much would this information be worth for the makers of XPTO? Or even for people getting paid to advertise the XPTO car?

Another possibility is to use it to improve search results. If you understand the reasoning behind a sequence of queries, you can direct the person to what they are looking for.

A model of how people think = A way to make money giving people what they want.

<comment><USER3> In the shorter term, there might be some special sauce in this site that can imbue a potentially boring task (creating and reading decision trees) with enough emotional meaning to make it work.

For the decider, there is the appeal of having a system to approach a difficult decision; of learning from others; of mastering a challenge and having confidence in your decision.

For people responding to a question and refining the decision tree, there is the appeal of demonstrating expertise and understanding how other people think.

And there is a more abstract appeal for deciders, responders, and just plain readers: validation that you're facing a challenge that you shouldn't be ashamed of, that you can ask for help with, and that can be overcome.

I'm not sure if hunch really does appeal effectively in these ways (I've only just requested an invite) but the potential is there. Starting with that sort of potential and really listening to users seems to be how flickr evolved into a product+community that is really prized by its members/customers, and another app made with that same level of attention and attentiveness could really earn a lot of devotion.

The large-scale analysis and AI could certainly be amazing -- but if you want to learn from this as a model for your own future work, pay attention to how well this app connects to the emotions of its users, and how they grow the community around it. If you're making something that doesn't have a straightforward save-time/money selling proposition, making those things work is your biggest challenge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anyone else think "Jump to Conclusions Mat" when they read this?

<comment><USER5> Yes but much worse when they try to monetize:

What should I eat for lunch?

A. McDonalds (sponsored by McDonalds)

B. You get the picture...

<comment><USER6> From <http://www.hunch.com/fact-sheet/>

"The presence of a link to a retailer has no effect on the decision outcomes Hunch proposes. Within a given decision topic, it's likely that some result pages will link to an online retailer, and others won't. Some topics don't have these sorts of links at all."

<comment><USER7> What book should I read (linking to Amazon). What song should I listen to (linking to iTunes)..

sounds fair enough - if they can stick to it.

(to clarify - If you are being sponsored/monitized by the retailer and not the manufacturer - then some recommendations would be pretty legit (you'd have incentive to suggest the best song/book)) Remembering though that any attempt to ask "where should I buy my books / music - will then conflict with that relationship with apple/amazon/etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I suppose this is what you do when your startup isn't required to support your family. :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how invested she is in her concept. Flickr, as I understand it, was a part of an online game originally, so if there are indications that the real value here is some subset of functionality or is leading to something entirely different, will she have the presence of mind to follow the hunch?

</comment><comment><USER10> Geez. My brain is just not wired to have any passion for creating silly crap, even if it made me lots of money. Some of these ideas for web apps represent the watered-down domain that has been distilled on the iPhone. Look for a native iPhone client for this app soon.

<comment><USER6> Calling Hunch 'silly crap' is a bit harsh, especially if you haven't tried it out yet. Let us ignore the fact that they have 'MIT scientists with backgrounds in machine learning' on their team, and that they started working on it in 2007 and launched only today. I just signed up to check it out, and the results look promising even with the limited amount of data it has about me and everyone/everything else.

Crowdsourced machine learning isn't new, but because Hunch has enough weight behind it, it might eventually become much more useful than a lot of other 'silly crap' out there. A native iPhone client for Hunch would then be quite welcome.

<comment><USER10> Ok, I'll sign up when I have time, but I doubt this will change my mind. There's maybe a fine line between decision tools and banal self-indulgence, and my guess is this app will encourage the latter. The issue is that somebody has to ultimately take responsibility for a decision that's been made. What's the disclaimer for bad decisions? Can the site be sued? And when this happens, will the site be reprogrammed to ignore the subject it was sued over?

I assume the app will ultimately recommend that it not be used for anything but novelty purposes.

Additionally, why is it more reasonable for a MIT scientist to make a decision for you than for you to make your own? The issue I have with it has nothing to do with who worked on this app, or for how long.

<comment><USER11> It's not like you are contractually obligated to abide by the suggestion presented. Do you ever consult others when considering something? Purchases, etc. Isn't this site just a way of codifying the advice of many rather than a few of your friends?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Could be a viable competitor to Yahoo Answers and other help forums.

<comment><USER13> A kindergartner could outclass _how is babby formed_

<comment><USER14> The problem with Yahoo Answers is that they got the incentives all wrong. People found they could get more points with a bunch of bad answers than a few good ones.

Google Answers was awesome for answer quality, if you were willing to pay. Unfortunately, they no longer exist. I haven't found anything that fills the void they left.

<comment><USER13> No, the problem is having incentives at all!

The only viable option is for it to be a part of a larger self-policed community, with no 'points' that count for anything: <http://ask.metafilter.com>

<comment><USER14> Google Answers had incentives and was much better for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> eHarmony for your brain.

start with a dash of <http://www.youniverse.com/>

add a cup of mahalo+yahoo answers

insert probability that you can't make or won't make a decision for yourself

do fun analysis on the back end in hopes to find a way to monetize it

serve it up as fun thing to do

pray/beg for interaction

hope in time people become addicted to it

profit

</comment><comment><USER16> someone explain this to me a little better.

Is this a web-app for people to pose questions because they're too wishy-washy to weigh their options themselves?

If that's truly what it is then: 1 - I don't get how this is "HUGE". 2 - <USER2> be nice to have a huge name to tag onto some silly idea that'll make insane money no matter what.

Someone prove me wrong so I can restore my faith in ... at least this industry.

<comment><USER11> I'd understand your sentiment if people sought advice on whether or not they should break up with their significant others. However, there are tons of complicated questions in life where others' experiences are worth a lot. Epinions is quite popular, but it makes no attempt to structure or codify advice on a particular product or need. Which smartphone is best for you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a pretty old idea-- it's a more practical spin on what <http://www.20q.net/> was about.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you need something like this to guide you through life, you're a bit sad...

What's wrong with making your own decisions based on passed experience?

<comment><USER11> The "Should I buy a Mac?" example is good to consider. What if I have no life experience with Macs? Isn't the experience of others worthy of consideration? Perhaps others' experiences aren't relevant. I'm sure Macs help a guy talk up more women at coffee shops, but a married guy wouldn't care so much.

<comment><USER19> Speaking as a guy who was single when he got a Mac, has dated since getting his Mac, and is single once again, the Mac has nothing to do with dating unless you're really desperate and willing to go after would-be hipsters. In fact, dating has no consideration when getting a Mac. You get it because it's a beautiful machine that feels wonderful.

I have a sinking suspicion that the people who are that sensitive to beautiful things get more dates than people who have less taste in things, but the two are not directly correlated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Look. Decision-making is difficult, and decisions have to be made constantly. "

And the last thing you want to so is think for yourself. ;)

</comment><comment><USER21> Hunch's decision trees seem vaguely reminiscent of the 'checklists to do things right' genre, as well.

I considered doing a webapp in a similar vein a couple years ago, and even reserved 'decidr.com' for it... so I find it amusing that now Ms. Flickr is doing a 'decidr'.

</comment><comment><USER22> I certainly think the concept has the potential to be big! Sounds interesting.

</comment><comment><USER23> So Ms. Fake announces a new project just a few days before April Fools Day... that's either genius prank or tragic coincidence.</comment>


This Uncrushable Robot Cockroach Just Wants to Rescue You - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600748/this-uncrushable-robot-cockroach-just-wants-to-rescue-you/ <comment><AUTHOR> "Inspired by roaches' ability to squeeze into tiny spaces, this new critter is part of a rising trend of building robots that are soft and malleable."

A couple of GIFs are at the bottom right of the article to give an idea of what they mean by it being able to "squeeze into tiny spaces".</comment>


Todoed: Turn any text into task with just one right click - <AUTHOR> http://www.todoed.co/

<comment><USER2> Its a great app. It makes adding of task and important text so easy. No copy and pasting. Just simply highlight, right click and add to tododed. Awesome guys!!

</comment><comment><USER3> Just visited the website.Pretty impressive! Great work developers!

<comment><AUTHOR> Check out the Chrome plugin! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Could be the next big thing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Good going team! Keep it up</comment>


Hacking Transcend WiFi SD Cards - <AUTHOR> http://haxit.blogspot.com/ <comment><USER2> Significant discussion from 140 days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6195627](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6195627)

Discussion there is closed, so if you had anything to add, you'll need to do it here.

There's also a massive discussion here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6980058](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6980058)

        On Hacking MicroSD Cards
        (bunniestudios.com)

There are other submissions, but they have no comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6900366](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6900366)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6419921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6419921)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6383511](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6383511)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197648](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197648)</comment>


Unleashed, Robo-Insect Takes Flight - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/science/robot-insect-flight-engineering.html <comment><USER2> Paper: "Untethered flight of an insect-sized flapping-wing microscale aerial vehicle"

> Heavier-than-air flight at any scale is energetically expensive. This is > greatly exacerbated at small scales and has so far presented an > insurmountable obstacle for untethered flight in insect-sized (mass less > than 500 milligrams and wingspan less than 5 centimetres) robots. These > vehicles1,2,3,4 thus need to fly tethered to an offboard power supply and > signal generator owing to the challenges associated with integrating onboard > electronics within a limited payload capacity. Here we address these > challenges to demonstrate sustained untethered flight of an insect-sized > flapping-wing microscale aerial vehicle. The 90-milligram vehicle uses four > wings driven by two alumina-reinforced piezoelectric actuators to increase > aerodynamic efficiency (by up to 29 per cent relative to similar two-wing > vehicles5) and achieve a peak lift-to-weight ratio of 4.1 to 1, > demonstrating greater thrust per muscle mass than typical biological > counterparts6. The integrated system of the vehicle together with the > electronics required for untethered flight (a photovoltaic array and a > signal generator) weighs 259 milligrams, with an additional payload capacity > allowing for additional onboard devices. Consuming only 110–120 milliwatts > of power, the system matches the thrust efficiency of similarly sized > insects such as bees7. This insect-scale aerial vehicle is the lightest thus > far to achieve sustained untethered flight (as opposed to impulsive jumping8 > or liftoff9).

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1322-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1322-0)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet another robotics article where a potential use is "searching for survivors."

<comment><USER4> Yes, "searching for survivors," to ensure they don't escape and tell anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How susceptible are these to bird strikes/attacks?

Asking as birds eat insects, will they be able to easily discriminate these from the real insects I wonder.

<comment><USER6> Great point.. What if it could emit a specific noise or scent to warn/repel birds?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It astounds me how much "energy" can insect "store" given their body size.

<comment><USER8> Fuels generally have higher energy density than batteries. Research like ([0]) can, in time, result in systems which are on par or exceed biological ones.

[0]: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235043961_Fuel- Powe...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235043961_Fuel- Powered_Artificial_Muscles_for_the_Robotic_Soldier)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> These seem like the perfect poison delivery mechanism... no one would ever know.

</comment><comment><USER10> Combine these with IoT security, and Black Mirror S3E6 is not fiction anymore

<comment><USER11> If that episode lasted for a few seconds.</comment></comment>


Graham's Venezuela Warmongering Gets Worse - <AUTHOR> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/grahams-venezuela-warmongering-gets-worse/ <comment><USER2> Please stop posting these purely political articles to HN. They are off topic here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment>