Emotional Intelligence is Overrated - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-69244073-emotional-intelligence-is-overrated <comment><USER2> For me it could be one of the most important things.

As a manager and entrepreneur we had some people that were intellectually bright, masters of cognitive ability, but were miserable and made everybody miserable.

As bright as they were, they had their partners or children abusing them, or cheating. It was clear that they were not bright in other areas of their life.

The problem was when they projected their anger, frustration or cynicism on other members of the team.

This is a red line for me, I learned to never tolerate this and it is one of the best thing you could do for your team.

Emotions are addictive and contagious. It you let negative emotions of one member go against the team, soon the entire team will react and escalate(people work this way, hey he insulted me so I double the insult back and so on).

In lots of jobs, emotional intelligence is not that important, specially when you can "outsource" it from the workers to managers but on sales it is an essential ability.

<comment><USER3> Your employees were being abused and you blame them? Think your own emotional intelligence might need a firmware upgrade.

<comment><USER4> Ve described a situation and what ve did about that situation. Ve didn't say anything about assigning blame.

<comment><USER5> Ve?

<comment><USER4> Gender-neutral pronoun.

<comment><USER6> We have one of those already, it's "they".

<comment><USER4> I sometimes use that, but it feels awkward to me when referring to a specific person. And in this case, I think that at one point I was using "they" to refer to the employees, and didn't want the ambiguity.

(I'll note that I've had this discussion multiple times before. I'm fine with people expressing disapproval of my choice, but please assume that I'm not making it out of ignorance.)

<comment><USER6> It takes some getting used to, but I think "they" is still a lot less awkward than using a completely new word.

My post was probably more condescending than necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A more accurate title for this article would be "Emotional intelligence doesn't correlate to increased measurable performance (in dollars and cents)."

Having someone who's productive in the metric of work throughput doesn't necessarily a desirable employee make.

Particularly, I take issue with his apparent notion that emotional intelligence is only applicable in certain fields: "This isn't to say that emotional intelligence is useless. It's relevant to performance in jobs where you have to deal with emotions every day, like sales, real estate, and counseling. If you're selling a house or helping people cope with tragedies, it's very useful to know what they're feeling and respond appropriately. But in jobs that lack these emotional demands—like engineering, accounting, or science[...]"

Unless this employee is working for themselves in the dark vacuum of space, they're going to need to talk to people, and anyone who's worked with someone with zero emotional intelligence can tell you what a drag that can be.

<comment><USER8> _> Particularly, I take issue with his apparent notion that emotional intelligence is only applicable in certain fields_

Others may take issue with the notion that there are no fields for which one with less emotional intelligence is not universally inferior.

 _> anyone who's worked with someone with zero emotional intelligence can tell you what a drag that can be._

Do not conflate "zero emotional intelligence" (i.e. the clueless, innocently blunt) for "destructive personality" (i.e. the arrogant, egotistical, aggressive, confrontational etc.)

<comment><USER7> Just so it's clear, my post isn't picking on people on the autism spectrum any more than the universe is picking on me by making my skin deficient in melanin such that I sunburn easily.

My opinion is that emotional intelligence is something that can be learned. Some people will struggle more than others, but we all have our challenges to overcome.

<comment><USER6> I know some autistic people who are actually far better at it, probably because they've had to actually learn it, instead of relying on instinct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> it is actually extremely valuable.

I'm a project manager at a big company that makes medical devices. we recently got our first shipment of prototypes, which we ordered and payed for months ago (because of long lead times for some of the parts). turns out, not enough units to go around for all the various testing. no one's fault, really, we just estimated our need inaccurately 6 months ago.

my job is literally to make everybody happy with what they get. this requires navigating the emotional landscape that is all the different hardware/software/firmware/quality/mechanical/marketing/whomever engineers and team leads and ensuring that everybody maintains high moral wh8le dealing with a lack of resources.

and yes, morale is extremely important to a productive team if you want to get anything done at a level of sufficient quality.

it's not easy.

I've got to recognize when someone is angry but staying quiet so I can remedy their situation. I've got to recognize when someone is holding back available resources from another party because of available personal vendetta. I've got to recognize when emotions are about to Crack and prevent the team from going over the cliff.

basically what I'm saying is that emotional intelligence is very important. without it, key players would get angry and fed up and quit.

the reason people think it is over rated is because it's hard to recognize until it isn't there.

<comment><USER10> Well now that we have an anecdote, lets throw out the data.

<comment><USER11> The "data" in the article doesn't take into account management or any of the situations referred by the parent comment.

<comment><USER12> And that's one of the fundamental flaws of the article: it attempts to asses the value of IQ or EQ with mean individual performance -- and completely ignores what matters most, which is of course group performance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Without falling on either side of the debate, it's probably a good time to bring out this quote from 1704.

        "Good engineers are so scarce, that one must bear with their humours"

        - Lord Galway, 1704

</comment><comment><USER14> Yes, but rationality in the sense of Stanovich isn't. See.

[http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Reflective-Mind-Keith- Stan...](http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Reflective-Mind-Keith- Stanovich/dp/0195341147)

Touches on the phenomenon of "Smart people acting dumb" if I have to state it utterly crudely. This is not one of the common knee-jerk reactions to intelligence metrics. The book itself is incredible.

Summary of his previous work here [http://lesswrong.com/lw/2g1/what_intelligence_tests_miss_the...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2g1/what_intelligence_tests_miss_the_psychology_of/)

Dysrationalia: Separating Rationality and Intelligence talks about the phenomenon informally described as "smart but acting stupid". Stanovich notes that if we used a broad definition of intelligence, where intelligence only meant acting in an optimal manner, then this expression wouldn't make any sense. Rather, it's a sign that people are intuitively aware of IQ and rationality as measuring two separate qualities. Stanovich then brings up the concept of dyslexia, which the DSM IV defines as "reading achievement that falls substantially below that expected given the individual's chronological age, measured intelligence, and age-appropriate education". ..... He argues that since we have a precedent for creating new disability categories when someone's ability in an important skill domain is below what would be expected for their intelligence, it would make sense to also have a category for "dysrationalia":

<comment><USER15> Actually, the DSM (4, 5) does _not_ have a diagnosis of "dyslexia". DSM 4 does have "Reading Disorder" (315.0), and other learning disorders. The terminology was changed in DSM 5 (see [http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Specific%20Learning%20Disorder...](http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Specific%20Learning%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf)).

The term "dyslexia" is used in the DSM's description of reading/learning disorders but was considered too imprecise to be used as a diagnosis.

It's probably obvious to most reading here that the ability to manipulate abstract representations, e.g., rational thought, is necessary but insufficient for adequate real-world problem solving that individual and group survival depends on.

Emotional reaction is also an essential survival tool functioning as a built- in signaling or warning system. Reactions serve as an "alert", triggering responses, arousing attention, motivating problem-solving and accordingly, reasoned action. However, in an emergency (e.g., a distinct threat), emotional reactions can be translated directly to action as in "fight or flight" activation.

Emotionality becomes problematic when emotional information is not adequately integrated with cognition/rational processing. If a person can't reason about emotion, reactions are more likely to "take over", and "primitive" (aggressive, "overly emotional") behaviors occur.

"Dysrationalia" or failure of logical thought or problem-solving is too general a phenomenon to have diagnostic specificity. IOW many better specified conditions manifest forms of "executive dysfunction", which I guess is the idea you were getting at.

<comment><USER14> And no specifically it is _not_ executive dysfunction which is too low level a concept, something that is entirely addressed in his book. He specifically addresses how executive dysfunction means lack of supervisory processes and how rationality is more all encompassing.

You posted some "101" material to something so far beyond it I don't think you will be able to take yourself seriously after you survey his work.

[http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reading.html](http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reading.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is it really overrated? I've never heard of anyone using emotional intelligence in the real world.

That said, I'm actually surprised that it doesn't negatively correlate with sales performance. When I worked sales, it seemed that those that did the best were those who could leave their compassion and empathy at the door and really push -- it was a lot more Boiler Room than really understanding the customers needs. But maybe that was just an isolated experience.

<comment><USER17> The might have left their compassion and empathy at the door, but not their perception on if the other side could be pushed harder.

<comment><USER16> Definitely. As one of the top sales people would say (paraphrased), "A polite no is no different than someone cussing you out. Either way you don't get the sale. And some people you can effectively force to buy something they don't want."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> EI is just another tool to manipulate people to the ends desired, and there will always be people who don't think they're emotional creatures.

Kirk always got Spock to do what he wanted.

</comment><comment><USER19> One more thing.

 _Experts agree that it has three major elements: perceiving, understanding, and regulating emotions._ \- One's own emotions, in the first place! Manipulating other people's emotions is a mere cunning.

 _Cognitive ability was more than five times more powerful than emotional intelligence. The average employee with high cognitive ability generated annual revenue of over $195,000, compared with $159,000 for those with moderate cognitive ability and $109,000 for those with low cognitive ability. Emotional intelligence added nothing after measuring cognitive ability._ \- and this is just a stuffed with numbers bullshit for CEOs.

For starters - so called "cognitive ability" without a corresponding ability to control and manage one's own emotions is a plain nonsense. The too-well- known marshmallow test and studies of so-called "cultures of honor" are exactly about this.

People who haven't recognize the faulty of one's own uncontrolled emotions and one's own undisciplined mind as the cause of suffering, who have done nothing to improve themselves just cannot be considered smart or intelligent.

</comment><comment><USER20> Maybe in sales, but there's a whole big world outside of sales. Most of the interactions your team will be having is internal. If you have people who have low emotional intelligence, it's going to make it hard for your team to functional smoothly. This study doesn't measure that in any way.

</comment><comment><USER21> They are looking at the wrong question. Of course, productive output of a person does not depend so much on his/her EQ, but their output and their working conditions may depend a lot on the EQ of others in the group (especially the boss ^^).

</comment><comment><USER22> My gut emotional feeling is that I'd like to see solid procedures and numbers from the study rather than a somewhat vague description before I'll be convinced either way.

<comment><USER23> I think there is actually a mountain of research in this area, and I believe that the general community of industrial / organizational scientists in this area have accepted that general mental ability is a really hard predictor (of work performance) to beat, and that it's a robust and powerful predictor across a variety of job categories. The author of the post actually listed one or two citations, but if you wanted the general opinion of the field, I think you should look for a review article.

I am not at all surprised that some CEO's offhanded suggestion / bet failed to unseat general mental ability as one of the most reliable and effective predictors of work performance. That doesn't mean that you should have a single-metric employment criterion. You could always select for both emotional and cognitive ability, you just have to judge whether it's worth sieving for that versus something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> How does one really test for emotional intelligence? Emotional intelligence is by definition difficult to quantify. For that matter so is problem solving ability; a five minute problem solving exercise does not seem sufficient. Did they account for years of experience in sales? Were all the salesmen selling the same thing? At the same location? What about height? What about looks?

</comment><comment><USER25> Well, the concept of whether something is "overrated" is a squishy one. Overrated by whom? Rated by what criteria?

As to the question of whether emotional intelligence has value, the answer is clearly yes, as even this author admits:

> Cognitive ability is the capacity to learn. The higher your cognitive > ability, the easier it is for you to develop emotional intelligence when you > need it. (This is one of the reasons that emotional intelligence and > cognitive ability turn out to correlate positively, not negatively.)

So, it's not that emotional intelligence doesn't matter, but rather that it's possible for very smart people to be emotionally intelligent as well.

But where does cognitive ability come from? Quite a lot of what the author calls cognitive ability is actually developed through learning: "the capability to reason and solve verbal, logical, and mathematical problems."

And the first crucial step toward such learning is emotional intelligence. There is quite a lot of research showing that very young children who are taught how to recognize, name, and discuss their emotions achieve more in education and career than those who are not. The book "Brain Rules for Baby" summarizes much of this research.

</comment><comment><USER26> Some people have a special knack for reading people's posture, expressions, vocal inflections. Others can at least listen to the words of their peers and take that into consideration.

On the other hand, some people are emotionally deaf/blind. I've witnessed occurrences of that multiple times and it always appalls me.

<comment><USER27> Why?

I find it a little strange that people constantly have such trouble with basic math concepts, such as variables, fractions, or exponents - things I understood clearly as an elementary school kid.

But there's reasons to think that there's a slight variance in our brain structures and how we perceive things, and that this coupled with our inclination to work at what we're good at leaves people with vastly different levels of skill in particular subject areas by the time they're adults.

It likely appalls me that I continually have to explain basic statistics to executives making decisions based on the information the same way it appalls you that you see people who don't seem to understand emotional concepts.

However, insisting that everyone should know what you know, or be as proficient at the things you're good at as you are, especially when all you do is condemn them for not being rather than genuinely helping them understand makes you an asshole.

I think a lot of people who are good at emotions (and more generally, topics related to people) often forget both how talented they are at those topics and the great deal of time they've spent developing those skills (eg, they're likely to have spent considerably more time socializing).

Just because something is obvious or straightforward for you now doesn't mean that it's that way for other people or that they're not just putting in the little effort it would be for you. (This applies to many topics and situations, really.)

tl;dr: Most people persons I've met seem to have forgotten how much work they put in to people related skills, and just assume everyone should be as good as they are at their subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> An article about Emotional Intelligence on LinkedIn? Umm...

</comment><comment><USER19> It depends of what you mean by 'Emotional Intelligence'.) If it is the hype which began with the book - well, it is overrated, and just hype. But if you think of the thousand years old Asian tradition of cultivating and maintaining a "balanced self" (via Indian meditation techniques or Asian Zen practices - doesn't really matter) then try to find anything more underrated. Losing the balance, losing ones face is considered to be very disgraceful and shameful event.)

The more clear way could be this: consider that so-called "emotional centers" in a brain (close to the center) are much more "ancient" than those in the cortex, which is a relatively "recent development" (we, presumably, share "emotional centers" with higher mammals). Thus it is very important (I would say - the most important) "part" of our brain - the world is non-verbal, it is "physical".

So, "training to develop of gaining and _habitual_ maintaining of a fine control over these centers via breath techniques and other practices" which is called "meditation" is a very important aspect of one's personal development, especially in so-called primitive "cultures of honor". The results we could see in these "tranquil" south Asian and Indian cultures.

And, of course, the book and resulting hype is nothing but re-telling the same ancient ideas for a modern stress-ridden, anxiety-prone, ignorant busybody consumers.

A much better book, by the way, is the "7 Habits" classic. Same ideas, different context.</comment>


Show HN: Rightmove + Zoopla + Gumtree properties on one map - <AUTHOR> http://cravify.com/rent/?ref=hn_all_in_one

<comment><USER2> This is now the 5th time you've posted the exact same link to HN. What's changed?</comment>


Ask PG: A Merger of Startups? - The Case of Auctomatic - <AUTHOR> In another thread you said that Harj's startup Auctomatic got hackers by merging with another YC startup. How's that end up happening and what are the implications for the two companies and equity of the employees of the resulting company? Did the founders come to that decision on their own or was it suggested to them?<p>I'm curious because I've never come across any other stories about two startups merging. Besides Auctomatic, has this occurred with other YC Companies? <comment><USER2> They were both working on the same thing, and they each needed the kind of people the other one lacked. I believe it was an equal merger though I don't know for sure. It was my idea, but I didn't force it on them.

I believe there were two other similar cases: Reddit and Ninite. Plus Clustrix merged with another co that wasn't funded by us.

<comment><USER3> We weren't actually working on the same thing. We both believed eBay was vulnerable and ready for someone to come and displace them. We were focusing on improving the seller experience and Patrick was focused on improving the buyer experience. The two ideas were very complimentary and fitted together perfectly.

PG didn't force anything on us, he suggested we meet since our ideas complimented each other. We met up in London and got on tremendously well, it was surprising just how similar our opinions about eBay were so we decided to merge and work together. Everything was completely equal - Patrick, Kul and I all had equal equity and co-founder status.</comment></comment>


R Is Not Enough For "Big Data"... - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasmerrill/2012/05/01/r-is-not-enough-for-big-data/

<comment><USER2> The title of the article is misleading. One may think that R is a tool is worse than other alternatives. It's more like "current methods (or simple methods) are not enough". R is as good for data science as any other tool (and arguably is even better thanks to its extensive library of packages).

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazingly bad article, riddled with inaccuracies. Is it because the stat/math has to be toned down so much becaudse otherwise the average Forbes reader can't grok the content ? First he says, "mean and standard deviation define a normal distribution". They do no such thing. You don't even know what probability distribution attendance at sports events is when you compute mu and sigma. Then he says, ok its not normal, its power law. But the reason he attributes for power law is all wrong. Its not normal because there are no "negative people" to lower the mean ?! Ha ha ha!

His second example on the height weight regression line has little to do with whether there is a physical relationship between height and weight. If you really went to know, your weight might be a function of some two dozen variables like body surface area, bone structure/density, genetics, food- intake, income levels, nature of work ( sedentary vs active ) etc. Even if you gathered data on all those, 24 dimensions is a lot. So you do a principal components, and what does that do ? The first PC from the PCA gives you a conflated component that explains say 90% of your weight. That conflated component is going to be a linear weighted sum of many of the 24 dimensions. That conflated component is just a math object, doesn't exist in reality. If you want, I can easily connect your body weight to the attendance at your local sports event and a residual, and that regression might even be a good fit :)

In any case, none of this has anything to do with R, so his title is pure linkbait.

<comment><USER4> I was really hoping this would say Big Data people are moving towards Python -- or, i prayed Ruby. But nah, this article had nothing to do with R or the others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > most stuff measured about humans is distributed like a power law

 _twitch_

<http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/491.html>

<http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/390.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> Sorry to say, but I disagree with the premise of this article. You still need R to answer many of the questions the author of the article is proposing to answer.

On top of that, having a degree in AI will prepare you for a lot of real-world problems because you've been lots of data sets. I'd prefer to have an PhD- level researcher who knows why my support vector machine is overtrained, than a guy with real-world experience who is likely to overtrain and bias the model.

Furthermore, the author's example of weight and height correlation isn't one of a bad model. It would be a perfectly fine model _if that was all the data you had_. If you ignore lots of input data to build a crappy model, you're going to have a bad time... But everyone with a PhD and now "real world experience" would know this.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think Big Data is about convincing companies they need to upgrade their "tools" and purchase your software or services, or convincing managers in other departments you, the Big Data team, are doing valuable work. It's primarily hype-driven. Classic IT.

Most money will be made not by exploiting actually the "big data", but by exploiting the perceived need to collect and exploit it. We'll succeed in the former, but not necessarily in the later. It's more about keeping pace with one's competitors. "If they're doing it, we need to be doing it too."

Lots of meetings with presentations that will use "big data". But few results that ever come out of that data.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't think Forbes magazine is targeted at the same person as Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER9> this guy was VP/CIO of engineering at Google? seriously?</comment>


Napwell - The World's First Napping Mask - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2011830108/napwell-the-worlds-first-napping-mask

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys,

OP here - would love to get everyone's feedback.

Thanks! Justin

<comment><USER2> Can this also be used for monophasic nocturnal sleep? Will the final product be arduino programable? I'd love to be able to add LEDs to it (for lucid dreaming) or add other new functionality and sensors.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. The product definitely can be used for nighttime sleep as well. Several of our initial testers actually use the mask to sleep at night and it wakes them up later in the morning via its simulated sunrise. (perfect for people who like to sleep and wake up late and don't want the son glaring on them through the blinds).

2\. The final product will not be Arduino programmable, but if you'd like a developer/Arduino version in lieu of a production-run mask, drop us a line on the KS page and we can hook you up. Also, if you happen to live in Boston or the Bay Area and sign up to be an Uber early tester, you'll get both Arduino version and the final prodution versions (and all versions in between) of the Napwell.

3\. This has been something that a lot of people have requested, and we're considering make a separate velcro-able module for such functionalities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks little rough compared to recent sleeping mask on Kickstarter

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/intelclinic/neuroon- worl...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/intelclinic/neuroon-worlds-first- sleep-mask-for-polyphasic-sle)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, IMHO the Neuroon's a pretty neat project as well.

The Napwell's still a prototype, so we're not going to look as polished as IntelClinic's product. However, we think our simple mask has at least the following advantages over the NeuroOn:

1\. It's comfortable. Our number 1 concern with the mask was how to make it something you can actually fall asleep in. We looked at the market and while other masks are wonderful technical solutions, we felt that were not conducive to sleep.

2\. It works everywhere. You don't need wifi, bluetooth, or a smart phone to make it work. This makes it more optimal for travel use.

3\. It wakes you with diffuse lighting. This might not be a significant issue for many, but for us when we were testing, we found that just having LED's in the mask makes it look like aliens are about to abduct you. Diffuse lighting gives the warm glow that's ideal for waking up gently.

4\. Price. When looking at the market we were shocked that other masks retailed for over $150. Napping is an everyman activity and we hoped to have a price point where we wouldn't be considered a gadget but instead something that would be a valuable part of anyone's life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sometimes low tech is all you need. Put on a toque or beanie hat, pull down over the eyes and temples, sleep. As for waking up on time, I have a mobile phone for that.

</comment><comment><USER5> Whats the colour temperature of the LEDs? In the video it looks pretty blue. Have you found it makes much difference compared to a warmer white?</comment>


Ask HN: Posts being unjustly removed from front page? - <AUTHOR>

Today I browsed to Hacker News as I do every day and noticed a front page post on "How I Made $6,000 in 7 Days with my Ebook." A friend of mine, Jeremy Olson, has a similar success story. Jeremy and his partner Nathan Barry wrote "The App Design Handbook" and pulled in $36,297 in the first 24 hours and over $56,000 in the first month. He posted these earnings on Twitter at which point I urged him to write up a blog post regarding his success. Jeremy replied with the following disheartening tweet:

    "@cballou kind of like this? [url redacted]

    That actually hit HN homepage but the mods
    took it down :("
 He also followed up our conversation with:

    "@cballou yeah, actually we've had several posts taken
    off the front page. Don't get it"
 My question to the HN community, and particularly the mods, is WTFMATE?
Jeremy is a well respected member of the community with an Apple Design Award under his belt. He has a substantial following in the iOS community and my initial inclination is that him sharing the blog post led to upvotes which triggered flagging/deleting his post. I believe that in the case of a post deemed to be as beneficial to the community as this one, you'd realize it's likely not upvote gaming but true interest.
I'll follow up with links to the Twitter conversation and the original article that was removed. <comment><USER2> _Unjustly_? The front page is automated: it is not a human entity. It has no notion of fairness or justice.

Do you understand all of the technical reasons why posts are penalized off the front page? Do you have improvements to the ranking? Or is this merely a rant? Sometimes things get unfortunately demoted. Life goes on.

<comment><AUTHOR> The front page is far more than automated my dear friend. While automation indeed plays a key role, PG and a select number of YC alum handle moderation of the site.

As with most sizable sites that handle comment/post moderation, I'm under the assumption the system automation flags certain posts and perhaps auto manages others. The key being that certain tasks require human intervention as machine learning only gets you so far. The automation aspect likely makes some very well educated guesses, but there's always the aspect of confidence intervals not being met and probabilistically performing incorrect actions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Seeing as the original story was posted over a month ago timing definitely is a factor. There's nothing unjust about it, timing [or luck if you like] plays a role. That's just the way HN works.

ALL-CAPS in the recent submission may have played a role - it's the sort of thing which might trigger a spam filter.

More importantly, the statement that "several posts" were taken off the front page lends itself to the possibility that some of the posts did not make the front page organically - i.e. the complaint is consistent with using standard social media promotional techniques on HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Let me start by saying that the outcome I'd like to see from this discussion is an agreement that there's still room for improvement regarding moderation and the underlying HN algorithm. Specifically, the case of two URLs being submitted with and without a forward slash shouldn't be allowed. The follow up submission should have attributed points to the initial submission and the post shouldn't have been flagged.

1) The story was removed shortly after time of post. Specifically, the story was submitted to HN the day the blog post came out. It's irrelevant that I decided to discuss this issue a month later and not conducive to the discussion; I just thought it was worthy to bring up that the post was removed where others e-book sale posts have continuously risen to the top of HN rankings.

2) The original post mentioned wasn't submitted in all caps as per danso's link to hnsearch. If you visit the blog, it's likely all caps titled due to text-transform:uppercase, not because the author chose to uppercase the title.

3) Several posts never made it to the front page. There was one post with 16 upvotes at time of removal which would've been the only post on the main page. The fact that users submitted posts with and without a trailing slash is very important here; it indicates there may have been a broader issue with HN's spam prevention system.

<comment><USER3> Let me be clear, the fact that this particular complaint emphasizes what happened to other "e-book sale posts" reinforces my suspicion that the underlying reason for the complaint is that HN squashed a social media effort to promote a particular e-book.

My reason for making this clarification is that I don't think the HN ranking algorithm is in particular need of improvement, so we are unlikely to reach agreement.

However, for completeness, the reason I do not think it is broken is exactly because it squashed the sort of post about which those with an interest cry "unfair" and reference other "e-book sale posts" as a point of comparison.

I will add, that if I were trying to design a system intended to foil the use of HN for social media promotion, I would consider a honey-pot strategy which would allow a comparison of two streams of submissions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the accompanying Twitter conversation that led to me posting:

[https://twitter.com/jerols/status/408977497255337984](https://twitter.com/jerols/status/408977497255337984)

Here's the initial blog post that was removed:

$36,297 IN 24 HOURS: BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE APP DESIGN HANDBOOK LAUNCH

[http://nathanbarry.com/app-design-stats/](http://nathanbarry.com/app-design- stats/)

</comment><comment><USER4> My view is that PG base given us a place to call attention to things that you think might be interesting to other folks. While it is nice to get some validation that others agree with you, I don't think that should be the aim of the poster. Instead I think one should post to HN as a charitable act and not whine if you or your post doesn't get the attention you think it deserves. IMO, it is a gift to the community not a "look at me" opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER5> Here's the highest upvoted version of it:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712226)

It seems to have been submitted a few times in short succession:

[https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%2436%2C297+IN...](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%2436%2C297+IN+24+HOURS)

It's possible that the original submission just wasn't noticed, so a couple of submitters tried resubmitting it, and a wary mod treated it as spam.

<comment><AUTHOR> That trailing slash diff is an interesting case. I feel as though the system should've been able to pick up on that one and attribute the point to the original submitted article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://hnrankings.info/6712226/](http://hnrankings.info/6712226/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you learned anything from the site in regards to some of the noticeable drops seen by a fraction of top 20 postings? It seems like a percentage of them follow a very linear 30 minute drop onto page 2.

<comment><USER6> Mostly just wanted to confirm you know about this site tracking the articles.

It is hard to tell whether the percentage you mention are nuked by an admin or the penalty kicks in after enough users flag the post... I'm far from an expert.</comment></comment></comment>


Last minute tips for YC Interviewees - <AUTHOR> http://initialized.com/last-minute-tips-for-yc-interviewees <comment><USER2> Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

YC is the new college degree. This attitude of "figuring our how to past the next test on the path to guaranteed success" is the opposite of entrepreneurial.

<comment><USER3> I would argue YC is very pragmatic about the criteria it uses to fund people. If this were an every-increasing spiral of BS to get into YC, then you'd be right.

Being plain spoken is basically the opposite of BS.

In the post I do note that this stuff is pretty handy for anyone explaining their business to anyone. You should be worried if it were only useful to YC interviewees.

<comment><USER4> I agree with this. The best companies and founders in our batch were those who had thoughtful, direct answers to questions.

Posts from VCs can be helpful to hear the kind of questions they'll ask and why they ask them (i.e. what they are worried about.) Answer directly and honestly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Traction gets you in the door, the big future gets you the check

Interesting. Would you say this is just a more focused way of describing what Leo Polovets has been writing about on codingvc.com, or do you think there is a practical or philosophical difference in what YC looks for?

[https://codingvc.com/how-to-de-risk-a-startup/](https://codingvc.com/how-to- de-risk-a-startup/)

<comment><USER3> I think Leo nailed it with that post. I just had lunch with him actually and it's remarkable how similar our philosophies are. Not that surprising I guess, since he is also a seed investor who started as a hacker.

<comment><USER6> > What makes people get out the checkbook is how big you can become.

Drew said 1M. So, its not that necessary to over sell than what you believe, is it? Maybe now it is as YC has become a giant corp?

Where is the YC of 2007 which created more value per startup than current YC (maybe i am wrong about the value per startup part but it doesn't look like, also it makes sense for YC to care about overall value than per startup value to create more impact just like big companies.. maybe ripe for disruption in few years)

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure what you're saying. You've always got to put your best foot forward. What worked in 2007 is just not going to work in 2016, naturally.

<comment><USER6> What I meant was Drew had applied with dropbox saying he would exit if someone paid 10M. But current YC seems to be to big for that kind of exit target.

> You've always got to put your best foot forward.

early stage startups can be very delusional about how big they can become on either side of the scale (drew quoting very less and some other startup quoting billion dollars). So, its not really up to the startup to predict how big they can become, it all depends on the interviewer. Nothing to do here for the startup i guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just jotted my quick notes on what kept coming up with the half dozen or so early interviewees I met in advance of their interviews the past few days. It was surprising how the same things kept coming up over and over again, so that's what spurred this post.

<comment><USER7> Would you be willing to share any tips for how to get an interview with Initialized?

(edited to remove my pitch after realizing its not needed to answer my questions and to remove a redundant question)

<comment><USER3> I've been trying to answer emails from founders as much as possible, and have been taking a few meetings from cold emails. My schedule is booked out to December as a result, but I'm working through it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How about advice for the YC application? I've read the sample (from Dropbox), but I've wanted to know more about successful applications. Is brevity important? Are screenshots and things allowed? How much concrete market data should be involved vs. big picture, theoretical speak?

I'd like to apply next year, but I'm concerned about a lack of usable demo/lackluster application. I've also seen people refer to YC as the "Ivy League" of VC funding, so I'm stressing about the details of each individual piece.

<comment><USER3> I previously blogged here about the general application process. You should definitely apply. YC is basically one of the few places where anyone in the world can apply and have a real fair shake at having their application be read and voted upon by smart YC alums and partners. Just as the SAT helped normalize access to higher education, the YC app process is as valuable and rare and serves a similar purpose to help great teams and startups rise.

Here was my article from before:

[http://blog.garrytan.com/last-minute-advice-for-yc- applicant...](http://blog.garrytan.com/last-minute-advice-for-yc-applicants- updated-for-2014)

<comment><USER8> Would it be alright if I emailed/messaged you some more questions I have about the process? I've never actually communicated with anyone to have ever been involved with it before.

<comment><USER3> Yep email in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a more general query about the whole YC interview process. Do people get 10 minutes and that is it or is this just a prescreen for a longer interview process? I do a bit of angel investing and I could not possibly decide to invest on the basis of a 10 minute interview.

<comment><USER3> They literally get 10 minutes, and partners have 5 minutes after to decide. Typical day is about 18 to 22 interviews back to back for 9 hours or so, with a break for lunch.

<comment><USER9> Well they must be a lot better than me at deciding which startups are good or not :)

I have spoken to many startups that seemed great after the first 15 minutes or so, but where I found out something critical a couple of hours in. I love talking to startups so for me it is fun rather than work to put in the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for another great post Garry. This is also perfectly relevant advice for talking about your business in general, not just for YC (investors, prospective hires, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER11> If you're the type to get queasy nerves from public speaking, strangers, or presentations, best advice is a shot of Jameson 20 min before your interview.

<comment><USER12> This is actually excellent advice, and I'm not sure why it's being downvoted. It works well with public speaking and oral language proficiency tests as well.

Don't have two shots. There's a local maximum where you're disinihibited but still not impaired. Find that.

<comment><USER13> That trick used to work pretty well for me, but sometime around age 36† my liver crapped out and a single shot of whiskey will now make me break out in a sweat. Alcohol sweat + nervousness + public speaking isn't a great combination.

A single cigarette is about 80% as effective for me, without the bad side effect. At a normal rate of public speaking, I'm not sure how significant the health downside of those individual cigarettes might be compared to the alcohol.

† _I have a brother a year younger than me who reports the same thing happened to him, so this might be genetic._

<comment><USER12> Your brother just doesn't want you to steal his liver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Turn around and walk right out that door!"

</comment><comment><USER14> Don't open it!

</comment><comment><USER15> This isn't true at all.

Literally nobody doesn't have any traction. Literally nobody has no big possible future. Literally nobody doesn't understand something that other teams don't.

Like, literally 100.000% of startups that are at that interview stage pass every one of these tests with flying colors.

Don't believe me?

Let's go through what it would take to fail any of these metrics.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

1\. Let's imagine that a startup doesn't "use plain language and is concrete".

Here's what it would have to sound like. I googled "computer science web service patent 2015" so that I could quote the obscure language some link uses. Here is something that isn't plain language, and isn't concrete:

A top link, to here [https://www.google.com/patents/US8689181](https://www.google.com/patents/US8689181) , seems good. Let's go with it. Here is their language: "A process performed on a server includes configuring the server to enable script for a Web service to be defined dynamically, where the Web service includes an application program interface (API) for enabling access by, and interaction with, a computer program executing on a device other than the server. The process also includes compiling the script to produce machine-executable code for the Web service, receiving a call from the computer program to the Web service, executing the machine-executable code in response to the call to produce an output, and sending the output to the device." This is the top link by Google. Since it's a patent, it's not written in plain language. Since it's a patent, it's not concrete.

Question: CAN YOU IMAGINE _ANY_ STARTUP WHO WAS INVITED TO A Y-COMBINATOR INTERVIEW SAYING THIS,

"So, first I'd like to talk about our product. We've basically invented a process to be performed on a server, that includes configuring the server to enable script ofr a Web service to be defined dynamically, where the Web service includes an application program interface (API) for enabling access by, and interaction with, a computer program executing on a device other than the server. The process also includes compiling the script to produce machine- executable code for the Web service, receiving a call from the computer program to the Web service, executing the machine-executable code in response to the call to produce an output, and sending the output to the Device. So that's what we do."

What percent of applicants will actually literally give a pitch like that? 0.0000%. A full 100.000% meet and exceed with flying colors the standard "use plain language, be concrete."

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

2\. ...Then zoom out, and be sure to show why that could be something much bigger

Is it possible that any team whatsoever fails to zoom out, or show why it could be bigger? Well, let's imagine it. Let's say that some team has come up with something without zooming out at all from it.

"We've invented a cable that can connect a new iPhone to a Macbook while also charging both. Competitors aren't making this yet, but we already are. We don't have any plans to make any other products now or in the future. We're really, really, passionate about and focused on this one. We live to make iPhone 7 to 2016 Macbook connection cable chargers, and that's it. We would never consider selling anything else, nor would our customers want us to."

Even without that last part, can you imagine any such company has even been invited to a YCombinator interview? Is it possible to imagine any company not zoooming out?

No. A full 100.000000% of all pitches by companies invited to interview for YCombinator exceed #2 with flying colors.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

3\. Traction gets you in the door, the big future gets you the check

Let's imagine that there's no bright future. Let's imagine a team that says "We're at $2,000 sales today, but within 5 years I think we could easily make it to $18,000 or even $22,000 per month in sales. If we continue to dominate our niche, we can have a solid market of literally a thousand people, if we include the Asian market. This company will be worth $700,000 as long as we are able to keep executing."

It's ludicrous on its face. No company is there with that pitch. A full 100.0000% of companies have a big future ahead of them.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

4\. Know your numbers

"What are your sales today?"

"No idea."

"Have you sold any?"

"Not sure."

"Well you're shipping."

"We're shipping, yes."

"Okay, how many?"

"Dont' know."

"Well, what is your cost to getting customers?"

"No idea."

"How many people visit your site?"

"Don't know"

"What is your growth rate?"

"Don't know."

"How many fingers am I holding up?"

"Sorry not sure."

it's ridiculous. Obviously 100.00000% of all companies know their numbers. This isn't even debatable.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

5\. What do you understand that nobody else does?

again let's imagine that there isn't something. "Oh we don't know anything special. We're just doing the same thing everyone else is. Actually our business model is from a For Dummies textbook we found from 1997, we're just following it. One thing that we can say is that the book does appear to be out of print, so we do have that going for us."

Nope. Everyone understands their business better than their competition. Everyone has secret sauce. It's ridiculous to even suggest otherwise. We're not talking about florists where they happen to be the only florist in that town so far, which is why they opened it there.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Conclusion

So these tips are absolutely, completely useless in every single way and will NEVER get you an investment.

Here is how you ACTUALLY demonstrably get an investment. Ignore all of the above and wow them with a story.

That's it. That's how checks demonstrably, actually get written.

I'm not opposed to the fact that this isn't widely advertised, but to waste the writer's time writing things that aren't true, and to mislead people into wasting their time following it, is pretty misleading.

I'm here to tell you it's bullshit and won't get anyone an investment, ever.

-

EDIT: Downvotes already, but I don't care, this is right and the article is wrong - and, worse, is wasting your time. It doesn't matter what downvoters think. If anything above were wrong, then I would edit it - I see your voting feedback and I've responded to it by making sure that I am being very precise and correct above. Downvoting won't make it right.

<comment><USER16> I'm not sure you're aware but Garry was (for many years) a partner at YC, so he's in a pretty good position to offer advice.

Also, per the HN guidelines ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)), could you please resist saying things like "Downvotes already"

<comment><USER15> The qualification you listed means reading this article is like asking a fish, how to fish. (Or asking a person what they want in a romantic partner and then doing that.)

Would you take advice on how to fish, from a fish, or a fisherman?

However, this applies to the qualification _you_ listed. Much more impressive is the fact that Garry has closed the Initialized funds (so he's the fishermen, LP's are the fish). For this reason I think that he can do much, much better than the advice given in this article.

That accomplishment (which I read about) is super impressive - it's a $115M fund!

He knows how he closed it, and he knows that it wasn't by following the rules he's just listed for how to catch some fish. He can do better.

I have to stand by my defense of the comment given very swift and definite negative feedback from other people. By mentioning it explicitly, and that I gave it due consideration, I am showing that I am not being a troll or things like that. I could edit it if I felt it was necessary and considered doing so.

More important than mentioning or not mentioning downvotes is the policy of keeping HN a civil place of discussion, and I take a very extreme position, that I feel is justified in this case. I am a bit angry by being mislead in the past regarding how to pitch, and this article repeats many of those highly misleading tips. It's simply misleading. It won't get you an investment. And Garry can do better. (Assuming he is honest.)

I suppose it is possible that he simply is blind to how he is influenced or makes decisions, even when he uses the same things for his own raising activities, also subconsciously.

The advice in this article is not good. It's bad.

<comment><USER17> > Would you take advice on how to fish, from a fish

I think you were joking here, but holy crap yes I would take fishing advice from a fish (provided it was a human-level intelligent fish that spoke english... which if I'm following your metaphor correctly it is in this case)

More generally the issue with "not asking fish how to fish" is it's the exact opposite of how successful companies treat customers. I ask my customers how they liked the product, what they'd change, how they'd sell it to other customers, etc, etc. That isn't an error. It's one of the most effective business improvement tactics I know of.

This is not to say that the information source is unbiased (customers are much less likely to suggest a price hike for example), or particularly skilled at knowing how to address their needs (they'll ask for a "faster horse" when they mean "gasoline engine" to ruin a quote)... but the fact remains that fish (customers or investors) are the best source of information you have.

<comment><USER15> >I ask my customers how they liked the product, how they'd sell it to other customers, etc, etc

Are you being literal in the second half of your sentence? I, as well as everyone else, has had loads of companies ask me about my opinion as a consumer. I've never had a company ask me "How would you sell this to someone else"? Have you? Do you actually state that question?

The statement "would you ask a fish, how to fish" comes from the dating world. I was tired of not dating despite doing what my women friends told me they wanted, which is wrong. I'll give a personal anecdote. Women looking for serious relationsihps on dating apps will say they will left-swipe or reject someone with just a picture of their nude upper body without a head. That's not what they want to see, they say.

I followed their advice for a while. Then I ignored their advice, I changed my profile picture to a picture of my nude upper body (I'm male) without my head, and shortly thereafter I had a great girlfriend I was in a monogamous relationsihp with, wherein we both deleted our dating accounts shortly after first meeting.

The fact that women say this is not what they want (when asked what they're looking for from 'pitches') is absolutely irrelevant to how to attract and make them happy. This isn't some kind of meta-commentary on consent or anything like that, I am just saying that it doesn't matter that they told me this is not what they want to see. Because it doesn't matter what they say, it matters what htey do.

It doesn't matter what Garry says, it matters what he does, and no, neither he nor anyone else actually invests on the basis of the points he's enumerated in the article. I point this out by showing what it would take to fail any one of these filters.

Also notice how powerful this comment has just become, after I shared a personal story from the dating world. (At least this is my personal judgment/experience - perhaps you don't find it any more convincing than my more rigorous argument upthread.)

<comment><USER17> > I've never had a company ask me "How would you sell this to someone else"? > Have you? Do you actually state that question?

Yes I absolutely ask that question, and have been asked this question. If you hang out around startups, especially ones using Steve Blank's Customer Development Methodology you'll hear it frequently.

> Also notice how powerful this comment has just become, after I shared a > personal story from the dating world

I don't know if I agree with powerful. I will say I'm less optimistic about helping you come to a deeper understanding since, well, it sounds like your mind is made up.

The best I can do is: imagine if you, and 7 billion copies of you, were the only people on this planet. Now picture where the above philosophy gets you in terms of global happiness. Perhaps strategies that emphasize communication would do better?

<comment><USER15> If there were 7 billion copies of me, then the best thing I could do to find out how to sell to them, is to sell to them. Not the best thing would be to ask them. Even more not the best thing would be just to look inside myself.

Garry didn't even relate how pitches he would have said no to got him to say yes - because they 1, used plain-spoken language, or 2, zoomed out, or 3, had a big future, or 4, knew their numbers, or 5, understood something others didn't.

I mean companies he would have said "no" to but these things made him say yes.

Quite simply, these are not the things that make people say yes.

Perhaps a better example might be this picture:

[http://www.concept-phones.com/apple/iphone-7-kitchen-sink- pa...](http://www.concept-phones.com/apple/iphone-7-kitchen-sink-parody- comic/)

It's a parody, right? But not exactly: many features there were explicitly requested by users.

market research is good and important. Of _course_ I would ask investors what they're interested in, what they think about something, what they would invest in.

But that is not how you get them to invest, and although Garry _does_ know how to get people to invest, he hasn't put it in this article at all.

I suppose the article can be useful if you read it as, "What a YCombinator partner says they want to see from a pitch." Just don't confuse it for the real advise that will get you funded. This isn't it.

<comment><USER17> > I suppose the article can be useful if you read it as, "What a YCombinator > partner says they want to see from a pitch." Just don't confuse it for the > real advise that will get you funded. This isn't it.

I was taking Gary's list as "what to focus on if you're interviewing in two days" (ie quite literally "last minute tips" as indicated by his title). Given more time, I agree you should focus on product, team, and traction.

> Garry didn't even relate how pitches he would have said no to got him to say > yes - because they 1, used plain-spoken language, or 2, zoomed out, or 3, > had a big future, or 4, knew their numbers, or 5, understood something > others didn't.

> I mean companies he would have said "no" to but these things made him say > yes.

1\. Isn't this asking a fish how to fish? :p (Just pointing out we apparently agree; happy to have you on board)

2\. I think a fixation on companies that save it in the 9th inning is misplaced. If you're gong to cargo cult from a survivorship biased sample, you may as well pick a group that didn't start off with an error (so imitating "love at first sight" type companies rather than "won me over in the end" type companies).

> [http://www.concept-phones.com/apple/iphone-7-kitchen-sink- > pa...](http://www.concept-phones.com/apple/iphone-7-kitchen-sink-parody- > comic/)

I saw this a couple days ago too. I took this as indication you need to interpret customer feedback appropriately, not as indication you should avoid customer feedback.

> But that is not how you get them to invest, and although Garry does know how > to get people to invest, he hasn't put it in this article at all.

I'm getting the feeling you think getting investment is about a con-men skillset. That hasn't been my experience. A focus on product, team, and traction is almost surely a better use of your time.

<comment><USER15> good reply but my last-minute tip is "focus on telling a compelling story" (I know I didn't talk much about what tips I would give, but only objected to the tips he did give.)

you are right that where I say he can do better I am asking a fish about fishing - but when he bagged the LP's for his fund (which is a massive and amazing effort) he played the fisherman (I presume.) so I think he's using the wrong role - he's using his role as a fish to talk about how to get fish, rather than using his role as a fisherman, which he also has recent experience with. It would be a more powerful write-up. the Initialized fund is extremely impressive, and it would be interesting to hear how he closed it (assuming that was his role).

thanks for your reply!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sun storage not so good for web startups.  Steer clear. - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/05/16/sun-honeymoon-update-storage/ <comment><USER2> This article is very interesting. However, the headline strongly indicates that it was submitted here to smear Sun.

Firstly, the headline is at odds with the conclusion in the article; the article states that they would have preferred Sun's updated (fixed) product if it had been released at the time.

The headline takes one specific company's experience with one specific product and generalizes it to cover the vendor's entire storage product line.

The comment poster, Onethumb, has never commented or submitted to this site before.

I have no affiliation with Sun.

<comment><USER3> Of course <http://www.onethumb.com/> happens to take you to a blog with a subtitle "Thought stream from SmugMug's CEO & Chief Geek".

But anyone could've registered that name.

I'm also mildly amused that he went from Quake-related news to photo sharing (of course the Quake/gaming community is much different than how it was in the beginning).

<comment><USER4> _But anyone could've registered that name._

If you're referring to the domain name - it looks like it was registered (or is at least affiliated) with SmugMug / Don MacAskill.

Try comparing $whois onethumb.com | grep "nserver" to $whois smugmug.com | grep "nserver"

<comment><USER3> Sorry. I was referring to his username.

I had a faint recollection that Don had used onethumb in the past, and the website was the best evidence after a quick Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sun is, and always has always been, a complete rip off. So is Apple, unless running Mac OS X is worth it to you. A year or so ago I was purchasing ~$1m in server hardware and the closest Sun could come to competing was offering me a bunch of oddly configured servers that some client bailed on.

Dell is good. Silicon Mechanics is good. Rackable is (generally) good. No name hardware can be the best, if you're careful on exact models. Testing is key, but there are some golden rules: Don't buy anything from Sun, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, IBM, etc. These guys need insane profit margins to sustain their bloated businesses.</comment>


Spotify is spending up to $500m on podcast startups including Gimlet, Anchor - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2019/2/6/18213456/spotify-podcast-gimlet-anchor-q4-results <comment><USER2> Audio is getting really hot, I really do feel a lot of folks are missing how important and game changing the AirPods have been. In some ways they are the new iPod for Apple, they cost about the same and I'm almost certain at some point Apple will add storage to them and we will be able to take them with us without our phone. I believe they are expected to sell 75 million units through the year, those are no small numbers and presents a huge opportunity for audio startups.

Audio is one of those things you can consume on the go, while doing other things, like exercising or commuting. In some ways audio is far superior to video in our modern fast paced world.

As a little self promotion, this is exactly why I decided to create an app that uses some open machine learning models to read articles to you, I believe folks on the go will benefit immensely by staying informed and learning new things. You can check it out at [https://articulu.com](https://articulu.com)</comment>


What do bosses do all day? The shocking truth... - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18651811?story_id=18651811&CFID=170279948&CFTOKEN=21491131

<comment><USER2> My boss sends out desperate emails to the team all day, using goofy platitudes like "we can do this - let's drive our main focus" and "focus and execute", to get us to keep him from losing his job in a top-heavy company with too many managers.

</comment><comment><USER3> While I don't doubt that CEOs work a lot, I wouldn't trust the accuracy of this study all that much. The CEOs knew their activity was being recorded by their assistants, so it likely affected their behavior.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect>

</comment><comment><USER4> This article talks about Italian bosses. It would be interesting to compare bosses across the top 8 (or so) economies across different sectors and business sizes.

</comment><comment><USER5> Simple: The higher up the chain you are, the more meetings you attend. It's not unusual for managers to have their entire day filled with meetings.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well all I know is some bosses get paid in the tune of millions while companies they run perform poorly every quarter.

</comment><comment><USER7> Don't forget, upper management's often unwarranted high pay is in part to incentivize the broad ranks of hopeful middle management.

</comment><comment><USER8> just amazing "....But not every boss thinks he needs more time for thinking. 'You can hire McKinsey to do that for you,' says one."

</comment><comment><USER9> Not very shocking if you ask me.</comment>


"Origins of the Apple human interface" lecture – an annotated transcription - <AUTHOR> http://morrick.me/archives/8432 <comment><USER2> I love the bit about being able to view content in a larger window. "This thing called an elevator shaft, with an elevator in it. That thing is still there today, called the scroll bar"

That makes so much sense how it came to be</comment>


Alaska Air flights using fuel made from fermented corn - <AUTHOR> http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-air-flights-today-testing-fuel-made-from-fermented-corn/ <comment><USER2> From isobutanol. In a process similar to ethanol production from corn. Which I guess sounds less link-baity than 'from fermented corn'.</comment>


Interpretability in ML: A Broad Overview - <AUTHOR> https://mlu.red/muse/52906366310.html <comment><AUTHOR> With the rise of highly effective black box models, there's been a rise in interest towards interpretability for machine learning. This is an area I'm excited about, so I did a dive into the existing research.

I found a few surprising things (lack of user studies and some explanations even "working" on randomly initialized models), and I wanted to share a glimpse into the field for others who might be interested.

There's definitely a lot more room to explore, be it from the usability standpoint or from the more technical standpoint. Hopefully this can be an accessible jumping off point for others trying to enter the conversation.</comment>


Best Practices with CSS Grid Layout - <AUTHOR> https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2018/04/best-practices-grid-layout/ <comment><USER2> I'm reading the comments and I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what CSS Grid is. Mostly because the spec is big and there's not just one way to do things, so it gets mixed with flexbox and tables.

I recommend watching last year's Morten's CSS grid presentation[1] as it has convinced me to stop using other layouts/frameworks and just embrace grid, which is truly amazing and it has been a blast working with it and making responsive websites without worrying too much about the markup.

1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txZq7Laz7_4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txZq7Laz7_4)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it still the case that one realistically needs to write their layout in flexbox as a fallback? Last I checked grid support was about 87% globally. I learned grid at one point but then just ignored it on the basis that if I had to write everything in flexbox already, why do both? Would love to know if this is a false assumption.

<comment><USER4> Use a simple mobile-first layout, then add "@supports (display: grid)" to enhance the layout for browsers that support grid.

Mobile OS browsers and IE 10 will get a usable experience that way without having to write flexbox fallbacks.

"Internet Explorer + CSS Grid????"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msERxu7ivg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msERxu7ivg)

MDN: Using feature queries

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Grid_La...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Grid_Layout/CSS_Grid_and_Progressive_Enhancement#Using_feature_queries)

<comment><USER5> I think the point is, you have to write the fallback anyway. There really is no "enhanced", as they are two different ways to reach the same solution. The user won't notice a difference, and no sane person wants to do the same thing twice just because one method is slightly cleaner.

This is why CSS grids have been a nonstarter for most of us.

<comment><USER4> It depends if your use case accepts that a site can look different in older browsers. You don't have to write a fallback if people are okay with that.

If your project's stakeholders are prepared to accept that IE 10/11 users won't see the same as Chrome users (I use, "in the same way that those on mobile won't see the same as those on desktop, older browsers such as IE 10 will also see a simpler layout"), then progressively enhancing a mobile layout with CSS Grid is a fine approach.

I accept that this can't always be the case, though. But I don't consider CSS Grid a non-starter for most sites. Browser support is now good enough that I look to use it wherever possible, and try to educate people still stuck in pixel-perfect across all devices -land.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've really enjoyed CSS Grid, to the point where I wonder how I ever got by without it. It makes managing complex layouts, or even simple, much easier to manage and control.

<comment><USER7> What does it make easy for you over flexbox?

<comment><USER8> While the two have some divergence in what they are intended to solve for, grid-row-gap and grid-column-gap (or grid-gap) are the biggest day-to-day wins with grid. I had a fairly straightforward hack using negative margins and calc() to get spacing with flexbox, but the built-in support for it in grid makes it feel hacky and cumbersome to go back.

Grid's fr (fractional) units also make the old percentage-based format for responsive sizing feel unwieldy in comparison.

<comment><USER9> You get it. Grid-gap is so powerful and I can never go back to flexbox even for 1-dimensional stuff. My favorite is using minmax() to control responsive overflow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't write client side browser code these days any more, but when I did back in the 2000s, I remember people bashing using tables for layout, and how everyone should switch to CSS.

From quick googling of what CSS Grid Layout is, seems to be like we're back to using tables, we just offload it to the style sheet.

<comment><USER11> The tables bashing was because it resulted in tag soup, even though it was conceptually easy.

This doesn't suffer from the same problem.

<comment><USER10> So they should've added new tags for layout, instead of table,tr,td,th ?

Much like yield vs await in Python3 asyncio.

In the Python 2.7 days, people used generator functions to implement async in Python. When Python3 first came out, you couldn't do both generator and async in the same function. I assume it's because they used the same mechanism internally.

I think it was Python 3.5 which added support for async generators.

<comment><USER12> I don't believe python 2.7 could ever do async. Async was only possible in 3.3 when `yield from` landed and then was bastardized into coroutines through decorators.

3.5 released true asnyc/await based on the `yield from` form and then 3.6 allowed for async generators.

You were close and your point remains. Although I don't think new tags are the right choice. I think HTML learnt a while ago that more tags doesn't solve everything.

I do really enjoy python async. It's cool to see a feature develop from a hack like that but a language first approach could have avoided some headaches. This is where Grid wins, it's a fresh take without requiring to maintain backwards compatibility with previous attempts.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CIT Files For Bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110101470.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

<comment><USER2> I predict this will have far reaching implications for the market, at least in the short term.</comment>


Google Launches The Ultimate Jobs Killer - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/09/26/google-launches-the-ultimate-jobs-killer/

<comment><USER2> Pardon me if this question is stupid; I am not a native speaker and perhaps I am oblivious to certain nuances of English. That said, didn't the author mean this piece to be titled "Google launches the ultimate _job_ killer?" Singular _job_?

<comment><USER3> This is one of the situations where it could go either way. Normally, you would say 'ultimate job killer', yes... But in this situation, we're talking about jobs in the abstract. It isn't killing a few particular positions here and there, but actually killing those job roles altogether.

When the cotton gin was invented, it didn't just take a few jobs away, it eliminated the position of cotton picker. Nobody does that job any more because a machine was just too much better at it. (It probably invented a new position for the person who runs the machine, but that's a different point.)

<comment><USER4> The cotton gin (1793) separates the cotton fibers from the seeds. The cotton still needs to be picked. Machines were eventually built to pick cotton but didn't get good until the 1950s, well after many blues and early country and western songs could be written about picking cotton.

In a historical pre-echo, Ely Whitney spent a lot of time and money suing planters for making illegal copies of his cotton gin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is supposed to be the dream behind RFID. Smart shelves know when they're under stocked. They can even tell if cart is in range to display ads. They can tell if you remove product A, eyeball it, put it back and get product B. They can track your cart's RFID chip throughout the store to make a heatmap on a per-store basis. Better yet, after a while they can make a heatmap for you, or more importantly <insert demographic>. Then you checkout and it ties that cart to your name and probably other info.

Checkout is the friction point this guy is focused on and probably will be how RFID is sold to consumers, but the real money in RFID is selling customer info to marketers.

</comment><comment><USER6> With these sorts of things, I think people often lose sight of how cheap human workers can be. Automating a unionized factory, where the workers get a good salary and benefits, saves a lot of money. Automating away a $8/hr job by a system whose savings is lost as soon as someone takes advantage of it and steals a toothbrush, I'm not as sure.

Some fancy cart that has a built in scale and scanning mechanism to work as the self-checkout lanes do would help somewhat with theft issues, but would also be expensive, prone to breakage, etc. Why not just get a teenager or other low wage worker. Sadly, we have plenty of the latter.

</comment><comment><USER7> The discussion about technology replacing jobs is worthwhile, but why does the premise need to be based on such a negative attitude towards food and grocery stores? The argument really loses it's effectiveness when it's based on a whiny attitude.

Personally I enjoy going grocery shopping, especially when a trip to a farmer's market is involved. However, I can see how it's a turn off to deal with food when your eating habits consist of frozen pizza and chips.

</comment><comment><USER8> Self-service check outs did not catch on [[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/09/26/superm...](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/09/26/supermarkets_start_bagging_self_serve_checkouts/?p1=News_links)]. I don't see how using your own phone would make it any better for the avg. consumer.

<comment><USER9> They did catch on in the UK, but I think minimum wage and other labour regulation had a lot to do with encouraging it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My thoughts...

Supermarket clerk is hardly an ultimate job.

Tediousness of checkout is as much a psychological issue as a real one. I rarely spend more than a fraction of the time checking out as actually selecting the groceries I want.

Produce usually doesn't have a barcode, especially anything sold by weight. Bakery items often have no barcode either.

The problem of trying to buy an entire week's worth of groceries for a whole family in one shot isn't addressed at all by google wallet. It sounds like this guy should look into some sort of service that delivers groceries to his door. (Which could create jobs, incidentally)

</comment><comment><USER11> I understand that progress is needed, and while I tend not to think of myself as a Luddite, this rekindles a thought I had about how automation/tech is replacing people. That question is since a lot of people have been replaced and a lot more people will be replaced, what low skilled jobs will be left for people in the near to long term?

Teenagers at the very least have not yet even had the time to be in the job market to acquire advanced skills. Will advances like this completely solidify the new life stage called 'adultolescence" while at the same time change the experience of what we now call adolescence?

<comment><USER9> The industrial revolution keeps on destroying low skill jobs, for the benefit of everyone overall. There is always a group of people who lose these jobs initially but in the long term it's never been that big problem for society after about 200 years of doing this. However, it won't hurt to be more proactive in helping people get retrained and move into other kinds of jobs. There is even some opportunity in offering a path for people who lose their jobs in one industry to get trained to work in other industries which has demand. I think the people who suffer the most are those who insist on trying to hold onto a type of job that is disappearing, being the last group to lose their jobs and being behind others when it comes to retraining. I think it's the same as people who refuse to move away from a town when industry there is shutting down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> My parents' local supermarket already has a version of 'scan as you place in the cart.' This works ok for small trips, but two-cart food sprees are much better handled by the folks in the green smocks behind the cash registers.

<comment><USER13> How do they prevent theft? With the (Yo)u-Scan machines in my local super markets the approx. weight is used to verify your purchase.

<comment><USER14> Indeed. Google Wallet? As he described the scan-and-walk process, it sounds more like Google Shoplift -- but maybe that's just the first thing that came to my mind. Of course, if you had some kind of disposable "smart bag" to do an RFID scan of its contents, you _might_ be getting somewhere with this.

<comment><USER15> I think that's overengineering. Why not just use weight, like they already do in the self-checkout line? Weigh the shopping cart full of groceries, subtract the weight of the cart itself, and compare to what they're paying for. If it seems wrong, investigate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is the US that far behind the UK in retail grocery?

A UK supermarket did scan-as-you-pack maybe 15 years ago. They've since been bought out and that option no longer exists, but it's hardly revolutionary or something that's only just becoming possible thanks to Google Wallet.

What seems bigger though is the next step possibility. SAYP allows you to save on headcount at the tills alone (and even then not by much as you still need some form of check-out procedure to manage the exit handover), which is hardly where the majority of the staff load comes. No; surely the bigger retailer benefit comes from moving away from these huge edge-of-town barns altogether?

If I signed up with Tesco Clubcard, they'll already populate an online shopping basket with a regular shopping load that's typical of my purchasing habits, automatically, and deliver that to my door. (I mention Tesco because I know this from others, not that no rivals exist). Ocado operate as an online- only grocery business with picking and packing systems as sophisticated as any to ensure speedy delivery of intact groceries without packing cases of mineral water on top of soft fruit.

What the author is describing is frankly a primitive system. Go the whole hog, be the grocery Amazon. Eliminate the need to have a retail barn that's kept attractive, temperature controlled and has a small army constantly stocking shelves. Eliminate the need for each town to have so many large presences per retailer with a constant feed of large trucks keeping them stocked and operate primarily out of regional distribution hubs. _Then_ you'll see the real retailer cost savings.

</comment><comment><USER17> I believe Google sending you an email asking..

      Can Google Wallet schedule your weekly/monthly/periodic shopping list
      for the following items from <your-regular-store>?

      - <item-1> - <quantity>
      - <item-2> - <quantity>
      - ..

      [Yes, schedule now] [No] [Change item-list and schedule]

..should be the eventual evolution of such a service.

<comment><USER18> Well, I guess my digi-wallet asking me if I want to order groceries is slightly less weird than my internet-fridge going ahead and doing it without asking.

Still, I'm not convinced that it makes sense for my 'wallet' to be doing this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I expected from the title a story about the future where Google uses purchase history collected from its Wallet service to predict items to be purchased next time, and even sends them to the home. Certainly that will kill many retail jobs.

Amazon does this, though imperfectly, and in fact it suggested me a periodic purchase plan of diapers after I bought it from them a couple of times.

</comment><comment><USER20> My local Giant has this already, but isn't tied to my phone. You just scan as you go, and then pay at the end. It is cool, but I'm not sure it's much faster.

Also, I have to wonder about theft. How many people are just throwing things in the cart, and not scanning?

</comment><comment><USER21> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy>

</comment><comment><USER18> _And let me explain how Barcode Scanner (or something like it) combined with Google Wallet will make my life as a consumer more productive_

Yep, this will really speed things up.

Instead of scanning items on the way out, (i.e. "beep...beep...beep...beep...beep") people will scan as they shop "okay... just line up the cameraaaa... hmm it's not seeing it, turn the phone a bit... oh i beg your pardon hang on [moves out of the way of another shopper who also wants a can of baked beans]... [phone grabs barcode]... ah finally... beep." - one can of baked beans purchased.

Can't wait!

Also, given how fragile self-scanning checkouts are - presumably calibrated to prevent shoplifting - how will scanning stuff yourself and then walking out with it be acceptable to supermarkets?

<comment><USER3> Have you tried the app in question? Even with the low quality cameras on the first Androids, it worked really well. On my 8MP camera now, it's insanely fast. And since everyone would be doing it as they picked things up, the lines to check out will be limited to making sure people didn't steal.

Having said all that, I think elimination of the traditional supermarket is more in line with what I want in the future. There was a startup on here that talked about having no customer-accessible store. The customer orders from home, drives up in their car, the store loads the order in the car and collects the money, and the customer drives home. Eliminating the customer's driving is a logistical nightmare, but I expect that will eventually be solved, too.

<comment><USER18> _Have you tried the app_ No I haven't - I've just used the 'standard' Android barcode scanner. So now I feel a bit sheepish given that I may have over-egged the pudding with that little scenario!

I've used internet supermarket shopping in the past, when I didn't own a car. It was reasonably good, and you paid £5 for delivery within a 2 hour window. You would tend to sometimes accidentally buy a weird size of some item though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article doesn't make any sense... This is NOT the future, Self-scanners have been around for a long time and have never caught on anywhere to my knowledge.

Self-scanners have been around for several years. Market District in Pittsburgh had them in 2005 when I lived there ([http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/09/01/review-grocery- stor...](http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/09/01/review-grocery-store.html)). They never caught on, and ultimately the company stopped using them in 09 (<http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09226/990741-28.stm> note: this article doesn't provide any details).

The problem is theft prevention and time. Every so often (appx every 10 customers), they would randomly check every item on your receipt. You think you're done, but you aren't, they need to check every item on your receipt.

The thing that IS potentially a game changer in this regard (which the article doesn't mention) is RFID. With RFID combined with Google Wallet, the theft prevention problem can be solved much easier (ie alarm goes off if you are stealing)</comment>


When games invade real life [TED] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/talks/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life.html <comment><USER2> I don't see this happening in Europe, not in the near future. Consumers are waking up, here in the Netherlands it's become easier to opt out of all kinds of marketing. And the Dutch are crazy for it. The moment these opt-out services came online they went down because of the load ;)</comment>


Statement by Julian Assange after One Year in Ecuadorian Embassy - <AUTHOR> http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Julian-Assange-after,249.html <comment><USER2> It's discouraging to observe that Assange's word are met by the tech community here with the same snark and derogation that Stallman's were a decade or so ago.

But today, the threads about Stallman on HN tend to converge towards a sentiment of "oh crap, he wasn't actually completely insane". I predict that the same will happen with the words of Assange (and others).

I am personally saddened that our community reacts this way. We're the only ones with any grounds whatsoever (no matter how small they are) to fight against this, and lazy hand waving is the best that we can do.

<comment><USER3> What exactly is the connection between Assange and Stallman? Why does Stallman turning out to be "right" have anything to do with Assange's future?

In any case, I don't think anyone thought Stallman was "wrong", just that he presented his points in a hysterical way that detracted from him being taken seriously. He still does.

 _We 're the only ones with any grounds whatsoever [...] to fight against this_

What does this mean? Hacker News isn't unique in any relevant way.

<comment><USER2> Good questions; those points deserve clarifications.

>What exactly is the connection between Assange and Stallman? Why does Stallman turning out to be "right" have anything to do with Assange's future?

Both are activists, who have warned us (and are still warning us) about the consequences of letting those powerful in the world of atoms exert their power in the world of bits. Their causes are distinct, but are two facets of the same object. I highly recommend reading this essay by Assange: [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-internet-is-a-threat-to- hu...](http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-internet-is-a-threat-to-human- civilization-julian-assanges-a-call-to-cryptographic-arms/2012/12/24)

>What does this mean? Hacker News isn't unique in any relevant way.

I'm saying "we" as in "we who work in technology and program for a living", not as in "we on HN". The latter is a subset of the former, and a somewhat representative one in my experience. Hence my phrasing.

Hope that clarifies my original points a bit :)

<comment><USER4> well said. your original point was completely clear btw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5>
      Stop spying on the world.
      Eradicate secret law.
      Cease indefinite detention without trial.
      Stop assassinating people.

One would think that those things were obvious democratic views and can't possible refer to anything other than some dark dictatorship in some back-hole country that no one has heard of. Yet this is not even denied by largest democratic country in existence. Is there any defense for how this got started and kept going?

<comment><USER6> _> Is there any defense for how this got started and kept going?_

The defense is "in the name of national security".

Whether this defense actually holds any weight will probably depend on where we lie on the spectrum of privacy, liberty, and our supposed safety.

<comment><USER5> Just as an intellectual challenge. A dark dictatorship would also claim national security, but people would likely not accept that. Is that because we simply have a bit of blind trust in democracies, or is there something else going on?

<comment><USER6> Maybe the key is in the secrecy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> He has some good points which I appreciate, but I do think he's trying to associate his own ordeal with something that is of a completely different magnitude. He's stuck at that embassy because he does not want to be interrogated by the Swedish police on suspicions of having had sex with a woman without a condom against her will. He is of course not guilty until proven otherwise, but the reason that he is at the embassy does at least not make him a hero.

Again, I agree with most of his points, but I find the association in this passage distasteful:

> As a result of that decision, I have been able to

> work in relative safety from a US espionage investigation.

>

> But today, Edward Snowden's ordeal is just beginning.

Update: I should have also written that Assange says that he will not go to Sweden because the authorities here will extradite him to the US.

<comment><USER8> Assange says that he won't go to Sweden because they will extradite him to the US, which I believe is true.

But even if it isn't true, your comment needs to acknowledge his side of the story to be taken seriously.

<comment><USER9> It is actually _harder_ to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK, in that such an extradition would require the approval of both the UK and Sweden.

<comment><USER5> I doubt there is anything harder than to extradite Assange from _an embassy which has granted Assange asylum_.

Since that's the actually reality, if an extradition is made, UK isn't as much in the picture expect that the embassy is technically located inside the UK.

<comment><USER9> No, that argument moves the goalposts. He's in the embassy because he didn't want to go to Sweden. He claims not to have wanted to go to Sweden because of the ease of extraditing him from Sweden. But it was easier to extradite him while he was walking the streets of the UK.

<comment><USER10> I'm confused about how you can be so confident in your assessments of the "ease of extradition" property of these two countries. To me that's like claiming you know which country is going to support the US in it's next war. Sure you can look at the laws and the history, but these things seem very fuzzy to me. I don't understand where your confidence comes from.

<comment><USER11> If you paid attention to HN (and other tech news sites) earlier than about 2012 or so, you'd see that the U.K. got in the news practically every year for extraditing someone to the U.S. on charges that even I would agree are too minor to warrant it. I think the last famous case was Gary McKinnon or something like that but there have been many others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12>
        Stop eating the young: Edward Snowden, Barrett Brown,
        Jeremy Hammond, Aaron Swartz, Gottfrid Svartholm,
        Jacob Appelbaum, and Bradley Manning.

Why is Jacob Appelbaum in the list? Unlike the others he is alive and free.

<comment><USER13> Have you read of the stuff he goes through?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Disclaimer: I never liked Assange, and I think his he is most concerned about self-promotions. That said my cynical view is that the only reason for this statement is that Edward Snowden stole his show (and I have huge respect for Snowden) so Assange felt the need to remind about himself.

<comment><USER15> Why does it matter if he did something for self promotion ? What he did was courageous.

<comment><USER16> That it _shouldn 't_ matter (with which I agree) doesn't change the fact that it _does_ matter _to people_. Taking the teeth out of a threat that's largely posed by public opinion is vastly easier when you can convince said public that the source of the threat is of impeachable character or distract them with some flaw or misdeed; people will happily fill in "well, he's kind of a sleazeball, so to hell with him" from there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So Iceland isn't willing to help Snowden ?

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm curious: does some kind of statute of limitations apply to Assange's case?

<comment><USER19> With regards to the sexual assault charges its 2015 or 2020 depending on exactly what charges they decide to bring.

<comment><USER18> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > A few weeks ago, Edward Snowden blew the whistle on an ongoing program - > involving the Obama administration, the intelligence community and the > internet services giants - to spy on everyone in the world.

Er... no.

</comment><comment><USER20> Very painful to read and I detect signs of growing paranoia in his text. It seems like he no longer has full mental sanity.

<comment><USER21> just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

<comment><USER22> A pretty apt username for the situation.</comment></comment></comment>


Geopastebin - <AUTHOR> http://geopastebin.com/ <comment><USER2> What? Why? Not a lot of clues on the landing page.

<comment><USER3> <http://geopastebin.com/about/> might be helpful. It's designed for sharing pastes of text-based geographic formats such as GeoJSON, WKT, etc.</comment></comment>