Book Review: All Therapy Books - <AUTHOR> https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therapy-books/ <comment><USER2> Hmmm... I'm pretty skeptical of the premise that "All therapy books start with a claim that their form of therapy will change everything."

My wife practices Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and the foundation of her approach and all CBT books on her bookshelf is that CBT in fact doesn't change anything at all. You will still have symptoms (depression, anxiety, etc.) after CBT, but the goal of CBT is to help you manage those symptoms and live a meaningful life despite those symptoms. It's reasonable to doubt that such an approach can work, but Scott's article entirely misses that this approach can even exist. I suspect that this is a latent bias due to his psychiatrist training. (Psychiatrists are trained to use medicine to reduce/eliminate symptoms, and that is their primary measure of success; psychologists use therapy, and the reduction/elimination of symptoms is not necessarily their primary measure of success.)

I just did a quick search on amazon for CBT books, however, and found that most results are things like "CBT for Dummies" and "Teach yourself CBT in 7 weeks". These are not books for doctors, but books for laymen that are merely self-help books with a veneer of science/therapy to help the book sell. Who knows what sort of crap is in these books.

<comment><USER3> For those interested in learning more about CBT, "Feeling Good, The New Mood Therapy" by David Burns is probably the most recommended book out there. [https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood- Therapy/dp/0380...](https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood- Therapy/dp/0380810336)

There is also a handy CBT app called Quirk that I'd also recommend checking out [https://www.quirk.fyi/](https://www.quirk.fyi/)

<comment><USER4> Claim that their form of therapy will change everything:

>The good news is that anxiety, guilt, pessimism, procrastination, low self- esteem, and other "black holes" of depression can be cured without drugs. In Feeling Good, eminent psychiatrist, David D. Burns, M.D., outlines the remarkable, scientifically proven techniques that will immediately lift your spirits and help you develop a positive outlook on life.

<comment><USER5> Ok, this is a premier example of Poe's Law

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Maybe placebo effect is falling – when people viewed it as an astounding miracle therapy, it got astounding miracle results, but now that it's lost its luster nobody takes it seriously anymore._

I don't think "placebo effect" is an adequate term when the benefit from a therapy derives from the work patients put in. It's more like dieting than like a drug. Faith in the program helps people invest the required work and persevere through difficulties and setbacks. The impulse to give up, to take a break, to skip the work today, this impulse preys on doubt. In this dynamic, the differences in inherent effectiveness between one method and another can be dwarfed by the power of one treatment having superior marketing and inspiring people to work harder, persist through greater discomfort, and eventually have a greater likelihood of achieving results — which will of course be credited to the theoretical ideas underpinning the therapy instead of the marketing.

<comment><USER7> What you describe could well be the explanation, but it's not the same mechanism that Alexander is suggesting.

You're suggesting the therapy has a dose-response, and as perception of the therapy changes, patients are motivated less and so they get smaller doses.

What Alexander is suggesting there is that for a given level of work that a patient put in (i.e. for a constant dose), the placebo effect has been reducing due to a "miracle effect" halo that is fading over time.

I.e. he is explicitly talking about just the placebo effect here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My own experience with CBT is that the diagnosis of the correct anxiety is the biggest weakness. Too often we listen to our thoughts in our minds too directly (e.g. "I'm not good enough") instead of understanding that the current anxiety has a function, and that is to protect us from what we are really scared about (it is useful for me to feel like I'm not good enough because it stops me from standing up for myself / risking a conflict with others). When I started to apply standard CBT techniques (face your fear) to the deeper anxiety, I found the surface anxieties vanished (i.e. practiced having and surviving conflicts got rid of "I'm not good enough" feelings).

Diagnosis of the deep anxiety is probably the biggest challenge. On a side note I found my dreams were very good at helping me find them by presenting situations which encouraged non anxious behaviour, which contrast to the anxious behaviour I would take in the dream - this disparity between what the situation demanded and how I behaved would highlight the deeper anxiety. I got very into the subject and wrote a paper on it: [https://psyarxiv.com/k6trz](https://psyarxiv.com/k6trz), which was discussed in some depth on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19143590](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19143590)

</comment><comment><USER9> There's a school of therapy/psychology that has a rigourous epistemological basis and gets repeatable results. (I.e. an algorithm for eliminating phobias that works quickly and reliably with durable change.) This school gets panned for not being scientific, and I have to admit that that's not undeserved, however, as I said, the underlying conceptual structure is solid and the results are repeatable. I myself was cured of a deep and lifelong depression in a single session of hypnosis by one of the co-founders of this school. So not only can I vouch for its conceptual integrity, I can also vouch for its dramatic efficacy. (This isn't "my cousin", or "some guy I heard about", it was _me_. I lived the anecdote.)

FWIW, some books. "Structure of Magic" I & II are the first two books and are a good place to start from to see the origins of the latter work. TRANCE- Formations is a rich text on theraputic hypnosis. And then there's the Core Transformation Process, an algorithm for profound spiritual growth.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/964154.The_Structure_of_...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/964154.The_Structure_of_Magic_I)

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/821993.The_Structure_of_...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/821993.The_Structure_of_Magic_II)

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/956297.Trance_Formations](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/956297.Trance_Formations)

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/369813.Core_Transformati...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/369813.Core_Transformation)

<comment><USER10> You call it rigorous, with a solid underlying conceptual structure, and repeatable results. Is there a gap between that and "being scientific" ? I have no particular feeling about hypnosis and no experience with it, but am a bit curious about why you would say that calling the practice not scientific is not undeserved. What are the missing bits to allow it to be either considered scientifically sound (or on the other end of the spectrum, to debunk it) ?

<comment><USER9> That's a fascinating and (IMO) extremely important question.

Hypnosis in general and Neurolinguistic Programming specifically are regularly panned by skeptics, and have not been scientifically well-documented, yet there is definitely "something there".

I'd love to "do science" to NLP, but I'm not qualified and have other things to do. (I got rid of my depression and the urge to study psychology waned.)

> am a bit curious about why you would say that calling the practice not > scientific is not undeserved.

It's just that a lot of practitioners and promoters haven't been completely scrupulous IMO about making NLP out to be _more_ scientifically-grounded than it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Effective solutions to deal with emotional and psychological issues are only effective if they are compatible with the individual being treated.

Unlike physical issues, where fixing a broken leg is the same regardless of the patient, emotional and psychological issues require trial and error, but most people don't understand why it's necessary to try different solutions, so they just assume it's all quackery, and avoid the problem entirely.

</comment><comment><USER12> > I am constantly worried by the history of how many things we historically > applied historical-purposeful reasoning to, totally confident at the time > that our explanations made sense – which we now know are not historical- > purposeful at all.

I worry about this a lot too. We tend to make sense of the world through the stories we apply to our experience, but with unreliable memories and a desire to find a story that fits what we want to think, confirmation bias even about our own identities leads us to false conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER13> Maybe new therapies really do work better simply because they are new to the therapist.

This could create more engagement and enthusiasm on the part of of the therapist leading to better outcomes.

</comment><comment><USER14> Years ago I was recommended "The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking"

It's not a therapy book really; it's listed in the self-help genre. Still, I love it because it talks about all the problems with self-help books. The author goes to motivational talks, finds a person who grudgingly and unenthusiastically yell, "I'm so motivated" and later tells the author his trip to the talk was paid for by the parks department he worked for; he don't really want to be there.

The author does a deep dive into what's wrong with the motivation book culture in general, how we should not be afraid of our failures or how the quest to feel good all the time might be to our detriment. It's a great read.

The article here seems to be arguing more that all therapy books are either the same or claim their method is better when it's not significantly different, or they promise exergerant claims of totally turning ones life around when they really don't; how therapy is often a slow though out process with gradual changes.

It seems to fit inline with stuff in The Antidote from the perceptive of self- help books. It's a good read.

</comment><comment><USER15> Just for context, if you are new to the linked blog, Scott Alexander is writing from the perspective of a working psychiatrist, who tries to rationally evaluate the effectiveness of treatment methods for real-world reasons.

This essay about SSRIs was one of my first exposures to his writing, and I found it very interesting.

[https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more- than-y...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you- wanted-to-know/)

The linked essay is setting context for a series of reviews on various therapy books.

</comment><comment><USER16> Here's something you need to know. There is a widely-held belief that psychotherapy is either helpful or useless. Actually, studies have shown it can also be quite harmful. In particular, some therapists help most of the patients, some therapists have little effect on most of them, and some are outright harmful most. I have spent time observing group therapists, and that fits what I saw. I have also asked experienced therapists to think about the various therapists in their community and how good or bad they are, and they came to a similar conclusion.

Also I used to teach listening skills, which everyone agrees are basic to being a good therapist. I did several workshops with therapists at mental health clinics, and it was quite shocking how many of them were awful listeners.

That means if you find yourself with a destructive therapist, you need to leave as fast as possible. And how do you tell? I would say the best sign is if you feel comfortable talking to the therapist and feel like they value you as a person, or feel yourself tighten up around them.

</comment><comment><USER16> "All psychotherapy books bring up the Dodo Bird Verdict – the observation, confirmed in study after study, that all psychotherapies are about equally good, and the only things that matters are "nonspecific factors" like how much patients like their therapist."

One of fathers of this idea was the psychologist Carl Rogers. He didn't have much to say about personal historical causes. But back in the 1950's he developed the theory that success in psychotherapy depended on the therapist being empathic, affirming, and honest. He and his associates went on to do a number of studies that seemed to confirm the idea pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER16> Alexander is a very bright fellow with lots of insights. However, he is a psychiatrist. I bring this up because psychiatrists are trained mainly to diagnose and prescribe drugs, and don't really understand psychotherapy very well. When I was in the mental health field, there were a fair number of psychiatrists I had some association with who practice psychotherapy, and none of them were any good.

</comment><comment><USER17> Alexander is maybe reading the wrong therapy books and literature. He should look up Bruce Wampold's research, for example. The dodo bird effect is well documented: therapy works relative to all sorts of placebos, but therapist effects dwarf therapy effects, not everything works for everyone, therapist- client cohesiveness is paramount, and there are really no replicable superiorities of any given therapy with regard to general functioning and well-being, even if specific therapies might be more effective for specific behavioral problems.

To be fair to Alexander, therapy research and literature has the kind of weird duality he points out, and it permeates academics as well, where the problems he mentions are maybe even worse. Everyone does know about the dodo bird effect, but then people either embrace it or they ignore it.

A big problem is the exact same thing that's permeating all of medical science, which is a huge pressure to obtain grants and notoriety for discovering a cure. There's much more rewards for overhyping than being sober in science. You could replace therapy with drugs in his essay and it would read the same. In fact, I sincerely was confused for a bit by his figure because the exact same sorts of figures have been published about psychiatric medications, and it took me a while to be sure what he was talking about.

One thing that's maybe not immediately clear to the general public is that with psychiatry and psychology there's an additional pressure to "be scientific" which then often backfires in the way he's witnessing. Both psychiatrists and psychologists are the targets of witch doctor labels, which then leads to this behavior where researchers and theorists jockey to outdo themselves in being "real scientists". The good part of this is that then you get a ton of randomized controlled studies and so forth, but the downside of this is you end up with this additional reason to promote your drug or therapy as being somehow better than treatment as usual, or to denigrate other interventions as being "unscientific". That is, certain things (e.g., CBT in therapyland, or arguably things like prozac in medicationland) become banners that you're expected to carry if you want to be part of the "real science" club. Criticizing the efficacy of these interventions implicitly doesn't just mean criticizing those particular interventions, or criticizing the specificity of their mechanisms, it means you get labeled as not being on board with the "real science" club. It is just one more reason for hype, in addition to the typical hype that is flooding biomedical research at the moment.

Alexander mentions that he feels like he's never seen "sudden, extraordinary, long-lasting" effects of therapy. I'd suggest it's one of those situations where you get to pick 2 of 3, nothing more.</comment>


Who is hiring entry-level software engineers? - <AUTHOR> Who is hiring entry software engineers? Since most postings seem to be for seniors... <comment><USER2> Well here (HN "Who is Hiring?" post [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21422735](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21422735) from last week) but entry-level doesn't mean clueless. We've had interns show up with personal hobby experience doing CPU emulators and 0-day exploits.

</comment><comment><USER3> We need a thread like this. It's very hard to suss out what the industry definition of a "junior" engineer is.

Especially when mid level postings will interview juniors and even let them make it to an on-site (at the chance of a cheaper hire compared to a more experienced candidate) and just pass them up for someone with more experience :(

</comment><comment><USER4> Apply anyway with a detailed resume about your experiences on projects, even your own.

The worst that happens is they say no :)

<comment><USER5> I just want to tack on that most entry level positions these days seem to "require" one-two years experience. These are the jobs that, as an entry level dev, you should be applying for anyways. 1-2 years is idyllic

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> email me your resume to chech[dot]nyah[at]gmail[dot]com</comment>


Response to Google open letter - <AUTHOR> https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter <comment><USER4> > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free > services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so.

> Google will not be required to share any additional user data with > Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so.

I don't think Google actually made either of these claims in their letter.

They didn't mention charging for services at all. They said "the free services you use may be at risk". Given the context, I took that to mean the quality of the service would tank if they had to share their algorithm changes.

The data portion is a little less clear. Google was very weasel wordy - <USER2> definitely wanted it to sound like they would have to turn over user data, but if you read carefully they only say they would have to share data about how they collect the user data.

<comment><USER5> Somehow everyone misses this little gem in the draft bill [0]:

> 52S.(1).(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided > with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news > business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news > business covered news content that:

> . . (i) are made using the digital platform service;and

> . . (ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up > and able to be edited by the registered news business;

> (b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the > making of such comments;

If I'm reading that correctly, if someone posts a news corporation to Facebook, the news corporation gets to delete / edit / moderate any Facebook replies.

I think they (the legislators) have lost the plot.

In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes.

Google's claim the bill grants news media business special privileges no other organisation on the planet has is not too far from the truth.

[0] [https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf)

<comment><USER6> > In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to > notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, > and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes.

Interesting.

On the one hand working in software the idea of having communicate changes to an algorithm like this to 3rd parties gives me nightmares, and opens the door to regulation of the algorithms design.

On the other hand, given Facebook and Google's monopoly positions, why not? They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic, and there's basically no real competitors. Perhaps a weak analogy but if your local government was building a motorway that would bypass your town high street, effectively wiping out 90%+ of customers to your local shop, they would inform you months or years ahead so you have at least a chance to change your business strategy or close shop.

<comment><USER7> > They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of > traffic

Maybe small businesses wake up to the fact that building the core of their livelihood on the foundation of a whimsical megacorp is a Bad Idea.

Google attracts businesses to work with them because they make visibility easy. But if they screw over those same businesses, then maybe the bait isn't worth taking in the first place? Maybe networking and building your customer base without Google, in some venue that you have better control over (or is at least more reliable/transparent) is preferable?

<comment><USER8> Start from the idea that small business owners aren't actually idiots and don't spend their time promoting their business on social media because it's fun.

Cost of customer acquisition isn't comparable without those platforms. Working harder and still not being price-competitive isn't preferable, even if it mitigates some future risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They really should stop saying "Australian news media" when they are referring to commercial entities only.

The fact that the public ABC and SBS media are not allowed to be compensated says everything about the intent and motivation of this policy.

<comment><USER10> That's.. awful. A Murdoch bill, then.

Do you know if bloggers etc can be compensated?

<comment><USER11> To be eligible for the scheme, the proposed bill requires annual revenues of at least[0] $150,000 (amongst other things), so I imagine it would exclude most independent-journalist-running-a-blog situations

[0] see section 52G of the draft bill - [https://www.accc.gov.au/focus- areas/digital-platforms/news-m...](https://www.accc.gov.au/focus- areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code/draft-legislation)

<comment><USER10> Wow, that's vile. So clearly about incumbent media power rather than promoting diversity.

I wonder if eg wordpress, or ghost, would be able to create a situation for their hosted blogs in which authors were paid for their content by virtue of the organisation itself having the minimum level of revenue.

<comment><USER12> > _I wonder if eg wordpress, or ghost, would be able to create a situation for > their hosted blogs in which authors were paid for their content by virtue of > the organisation itself having the minimum level of revenue._

That would open up a whole other can of worms in terms of liability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When Murdoch and Google duke it out using the Australian people as their human shield I find nothing to be happy about and plenty to be sad about. Both parties here are disingenuous about their stated positions, both are rather cynical in how the perform their negotiations. In the end the public, no matter what, will end up the loser because neither of these parties has their best interest at heart. Murdoch just wants money, Google wants to get as much content as they can for free and meanwhile whatever they agree on will be paid for by the public in one way or another. This is a disgusting spectacle at many levels.

<comment><USER14> The Australian consumer has already lost. This whole country is an exercise in trussing up the public and making sure they pay the very most for the very least.

I've long given up on Australian journalism - at least in the main stream. Obviously the Murdoch papers are garbage, but the Age and SMH are almost (and becoming) as appalling. The ABC and SBS have been cowered to the extent that they jump at their own shadows and now _have_ to include cometary from utter fuckwits like Gerard Henderson or that vast twit Greg Sheridan lest they appear biased. It now seems that the ABC almost has to ask permission to publish a story. The Age was a great newspaper, now it's almost unreadable - apart form the NYTimes and Wapo stories they run.

Google are not the good guys. They are a rapacious monopoly that have their shareholders interest at heart, NOT the Google consumer. And in terms of "trusting them with our data" \- like that's the very least we'd expect from a product that purports to do this - and they don't do this for free - WE pay for it.

Like cry me a river Google - like News Corp, they pay fuck all tax in Australia, and, just like Murdoch, are more than happy to take advertising from fake news and conspiracy pushers that does nothing but fatten their profits and damage society.

There is good media out there - Crikey, The Guardian, New Matilda, new Daily etc, but it isn't mainstream, one has to, dare I say, search for it.

<comment><USER15> You and the parent post both sum up my feelings better than I can. We Aussies are being used as meat in the grinder between two companies that are each pretty awful in their own ways. I struggle to feel bad for either of them, really.

Probably the most depressing of all of this is how the ACCC - what has always been a very closely treasured and respected independent government body - <USER3> been used here as a pawn by the government-media oligarchy. It really soils all the really good work they've done to give us very robust and fair consumer laws and protections we enjoy. They've been used as the shitkickers for what is obviously a Murdoch-driven government play, where (not unlike the Five Eyes playbook) he hopes to ram through some draconian bullshit here as a proving ground, to which he can later point in the UK and US for similar laws there.

One of the best decisions I ever made was adding Newscorp's bullshit to my ad blocker so accidentally clicking URLs to it fails to load. One of the other best was disconecting myself from Google as much as I have.

<comment><USER16> Yep, it is offensive that the ACCC would even contribute to this nonsensical "debate". There is not a shred of preserving Competition in the News Media and digital landscapes in Australia. There is certainly no way the ACCC has acted in the interest of the Consumer. This whole debacle serves a few financial and political interests and works against healthy debate, democracy and the population's interest.

Access to a variety of editorial positions in the media is not possible for the average Aussie. Newscorp control the opinions of the country and the electorate - a balanced view is not within the grasp of Australia anymore, regardless of how this legislation turns out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> To fully understand this, it would be a good idea to understand the degree of influence that the Murdoch media has on the Australian landscape.

Murdoch media owns the vast majority of newspapers across Australia and is also more or less the only cable TV provider in Australia.

A good highlight of the power the Murdoch press has over Australia would be to look at the fact that the vast majority of journalists who work in the Canberra press gallery (parliamentary journalists), work for The Australian or other Murdoch entities, and have such a stranglehold on political journalism that it is a commonly accepted truth in Australian journalism that "if you want to know tomorrows news, read The Australian today."

The real kicker is that the Murdoch presses political biases are not subtle or secret, they are about as overt and blatant as you can possibly get with The Australian frequently running full front-page articles trashing one political party (Labor, the "left" leaning party) and heaping praise on the other (Liberal/National, the "right" leaning party).

With all of that context, the bill suddenly takes on a slightly more sinister tone when you realise that it is more or less designed to benefit one man and his media empire.

</comment><comment> _-___________-_ The misinformation seems to be in the ACCC letter, since the Google letter [0] doesn't claim that they'd have to charge for Google Search or Youtube.

Not surprising that they would try to use the current mood regarding tech companies to defend the government's position though.

[0] [https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an- open...](https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/)

<comment><USER10> The Google letter pretty clearly makes overtures about "threats" to their free services.

"Nice free search you got there. Shame if something were to.. happen.. to it."

<comment><USER18> Well, that's up to them though. The context of the "shame if something were to happen to it" quote is about destroying/stealing the other person's property, or hurting them. That's quite different to stopping providing a service to them which is currently provided under no compulsion...

Google is trying to say that the law won't make providing a free service viable. Is that an over-exaggeration? Perhaps. But maybe not...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Looks like Google has now started showing a popup [0] in Australia which links to the open letter [1].

[0] [https://i.imgur.com/A3IPkQy.png](https://i.imgur.com/A3IPkQy.png)

[1] [https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an- open...](https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open-letter)

<comment><USER13> Desperately in need of footsoldiers.

<comment><USER20> yeah my 12 yr old son just got this pop up on his phone. His response was "not cool Gov.." I had to explain that the situation is actually more complicated than that and he shouldn't trust one source for the truth.

I think he's starting to understand that there is no good guy here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a very disappointing response from the ACCC. It seems to be extremely misleading in its own right.

> Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free > services

Google did not state this. The ACCC - the supposed detached "fair" regulator, in charge of creating this code, just made something up to suit their own ends.

> Google will not be required to share any additional user data with > Australian news businesses

The code [1] literally says:

"The responsible digital platform must ... give information about how the registered news business corporation can gain access to ... the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business)about the registered news business' users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service" (Page 10, Section 52M).

The ACCC here is straight up lying. I would like any of the people vocally defending it here to say what they think about this.

NB: I think it is quite telling that it's quite hard to dig out the _actual_ draft code [1] - they don't seem to link to it in any of their press releases etc. They actually don't want people to be able to discuss this openly from what I can tell:

[1] [https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf)

<comment><USER22> > > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free > services

> Google did not state this.

Google did say that this legislation would:

> put the free services you use at risk in Australia.

That's implying that either the services would go, or they would no longer be free.

<comment><USER23> That doesn't mean that the law explicitly requires that.

Just that Google thinks running the service for free might not be viable.

<comment><USER13> No, that's just Google's way of trying to mobilize the general public to work their case for them. A little bit of blackmail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> From the ACCC's own release:

 _In addition, the platforms must give news media businesses clear information about the data they collect through users' interactions with news on digital platforms; for example how long users spend on an article, how many articles they consume in a certain time period, and other information about user engagement with news content across digital platform services._ [1]

Sure sounds like they have to collect and share user data to me.

[1] [https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news- media-...](https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to- negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms)

<comment><USER22> > Sure sounds like they have to collect and share user data to me.

This seems to be aimed at AMP. News sources get any information that google collect about users reading the articles. Seems fair.

Google could always not collect that information in the first place if they wanted to actually take the moral high ground. But of course they won't do that.

<comment><USER24> I doubt that. Don't forget it's FB that also has to pay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Google misrepresenting something which might cut into their profits? Who'd have thought it?

I hate AMP, and this law might see the death or at least reigning in of it. I hate the way Google has killed niche websites by scraping their content and then profiting from it. I hate the way Google says they want to keep user data safe, while also using that data to increase their ad revenue. Fuck Google.

<comment><USER26> > I hate the way Google says they want to keep user data safe, while also > using that data to increase their ad revenue

Yet, from the perspective of many users, this _is_ keeping their data safe. Many people I know are completely fine with advertising. In terms of keeping data safe from being lost, leaked, or hacked, I think Google is probably one of the safest places out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm Australian, and I created an account just to comment on this issue.

Imagine Google News or the Facebook news feed were normal news websites. If you count their traffic as the amount of times people went to those websites just to read news, their raw traffic would dwarf any other news website in Australia by an order of magnitude.

Journalistic websites have editorial standards, and at least some relationship and commitment to the truth (even the Murdoch ones). A news feed, while algorithmically generated, is for all intents and purposes the front page of a newspaper for many, many people.

There is no editor of a news feed. No one checks that what bubbles up to the top passes basic fact checking standards. Most importantly, there's no consequences for misinformation and conspiracy theories being on the same front page as a story about some construction disrupting your commute tomorrow.

The main gist of the new code of conduct, to me, seems like the ability for news websites to collectively bargain with a multinational corporation that essentially controls the news landscape in this country. We aren't the USA. Our news websites aren't the New York Times and the Washington Post. Unfortunately, the two biggest are owned by fairly evil companies (Channel nine and News Corp). Rupert Murdoch himself controls 70% of the Australian media landscape. When he dies, however, this law will still exist.

We've seen the consequences of a journalistic landscape that exists solely through social media without any significant independent news sources in Myanmar in 2015. Australia won't end up like that, but allowing independent journalism to wither on the vine distorts our ability to participate in democracy.

As a collective, if every single news organisation decided to go on strike from Facebook or Google tomorrow, the amount of money advertisers would pay them would drop off a cliff. Google is scared by this because they know that the value they give to the consumer is the sum of Australian journalism, a tasting menu of all the best stuff that newspapers have to offer. Why, then, shouldn't that sum itself have the ability to bargain against Google and get itself a better deal?

<comment><USER28> For Google at least they have the option to opt-out. They can add a robots.txt file to prevent indexing. It isn't clear to me why special legislation is required to give the media companies bargaining power. They already have the power to say no if they don't think the arrangement is fair.

(For facebook it is less clear, because you can't really force people to stop sharing your links)

<comment><USER29> Sorta kinda. You can completely opt-out of Google Search entirely but there's no way to opt-out of having your content excepted while also appearing in organic search results.

I mean I would be pissed if I was a major news org that saw traffic drop off because Google is copy-pasting content from my site in their omnibox. This stuff is extremely good for the user and I rely on it a lot but they should have to license the content they republish.

<comment><USER28> Is the "omnibox" a big problem for news? I mostly see it for "facts" as opposed to recent events. But yes, it would be good to prevent that. However it seems like this isn't the primary focus of the legislation?

I think it _would_ be very interesting to have a copyright infringement case on the information pulled into the answer boxes, but I think that is a separate problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I feel like this time it's different , google (and big tech it represents) will get little sympathy on reddit and other watering holes. Even if the law seems restricting, it's Google who broke the social contract of the internet and turned from a benevolent rent-seeker to a feudal lord. (E.g. check this: [https://www.google.com/search?q=money+for+nothing](https://www.google.com/search?q=money+for+nothing) , google just pastes the lyrics and there is NO link to read them on the original site. Even if musixmatch is getting paid , they are made irrelevant and this is a poisoned pill).

Reading the defenses here in HN, I have become personally partial to conspiracy theories that too many paid commenters are among the crowd here.

Plus i don't get what the fuss is about google news. I don't think it's used much outside the US, and even these websites aren't just going to lose all their traffic, because people are addicted to news. They 'll be partly visiting local websites more often, and this shift may actualy be enough to revive the income-starved journalism profession.

<comment><USER31> >conspiracy theories that too many paid commenters are among the crowd here

I think HN just has a large pro-google crowd. I remember it used to be everyone loved google. So it shouldn't be a surprise that one of the remaining bastions of google public support would be a silicon valley startup community.

I suspect a lot of people outside Australia are unaware of how respected an institution the ACCC is. Maybe that is why they are so quick to discount their response here.

<comment><USER32> Mmm... Stereotype much? I see why you don't mind the newscorp news.

Then ACCC is far from in the right here; this seems to be being driven by political motivations, not some motivation to do the best for Australia / Australians.

The ACCC has plenty of opportunity to explain _why_ it's better this way, and don't seem to have clearly articulated it.

"Better for democracy" or "better for newscorp"? You tell me; why the ABC and SBS are excluded from this?

...because that's what the government wants. The ACCC Looks increasingly like it's just a mouthpiece.

<comment><USER31> >Mmm... Stereotype much? I see why you don't mind the newscorp news.

I don't like the newscorp news actually. But it is revealing that you would think this. One might suspect we just have different views on who should be controlling things in this case. I am not as confident as I suspect you might be about who should be controlling media access. But I think google is being very disingenious in their letter, and the ACCC seems far less so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> For the health of society, all recommender algorithms have to be daylighted. For a start.

Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising revenue for monopolies societally important?

Every other efficient open market is heavily regulated. Accountability, transparency, fair play, information symmetry, prohibit self-dealing & conflicts of interest, tort, etc.

Right now we can't even imagine applying casino level scrutiny to social media.

What's so special about social media that it doesn't warrant some hygiene, some guard rails?

<comment><USER34> > Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising > revenue for monopolies societally important?

I don't really see how gamification being terrible will only cause ad revenue to drop. Surely it will also make the results worse and less relevant to you?

As in, if SEO spam managed to take over the top results of major queries, it doesn't just drop ad revenue but actually makes Search suck, right?

<comment><USER33> How could future results be any worse?

<comment><USER34> I actually don't see how "gamification" (adversarial websites exploiting loopholes in ranking) can even result in making ad revenue lower excepting the scenario where it makes Search itself less useful and therefore less used overall?

<comment><USER33> IDK. My prediction: Ad revenue peaked. COVID-19 is accelerating the decline. Google and others switched strategies to engagement and "rundles".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This media release is confusing.

It was almost as if somebody said you need to put out a press release so find something to put in it, rather than we have something really important to say so we must put out a press release.

Who is making these decisions?

</comment><comment><USER36> A small number of media owners control old media in Australia. There is a single national newspaper and most cities have a single daily. They are generally owned by the same person. That person flies in people at election time to aggressively campaign for the government of their choice. This only makes sense if there is some quid pro quo. I have no love for Facebook or Google but the Australian government does what it must to keep favour with media proprietors or risk toxic campaigns against them.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm just curious if anyone knows... does this specifically call out Google or does this also potentially have implications for other news aggregators that work in a similar way? Could this also target reddit or even hacker news?

I couldn't find where they define the platform that is Google.

<comment><USER38> The draft doesn't name Google or Facebook, but 52C gives the Treasurer the ability to deem specific corporations and services "designated digital platform corporations/services", and they have announced that Google and Facebook will be the initial targets. E.g. in the explanatory materials,

> In the first instance, the Government has announced that the mandatory code > of conduct will apply to Facebook and Google. However, the Treasurer may > also make subsequent instruments in the future designating other platforms > where fundamental bargaining power imbalances with Australian news > businesses emerge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This response does not respond to the claims made in the open letter. The bill as drafted is pure corporate rent-seeking, and appears to serve no genuine public good.

</comment><comment><USER39> TLDR:

\- google has monopoly on search results.

\- traditional news companies not making enough money, blame google.

\- Australian government decides it knows what is best, regulate the monopoly.

I would love to hear some input from actual journalists. It's telling that in the whole 29 page draft, journalist is mentioned twice and consumer(as a natural person) is mentioned once[1]. From the draft, I don't get the feeling the Australian government is really interested in a healthy news media sector but rather, making the existing news media sector happy.

[1] [https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER40> > This will address a significant bargaining power imbalance between > Australian news media businesses and Google and Facebook.

This is so untrue. News Corp is easily the most powerful political entity in Australia. It's not a stretch to say they pick prime ministers.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm very curious how this law wouldn't violate various free trade deals Australia has struck.

Surely a tax that explicitly names only foreign companies is the opposite of free trade?

Sure, China has driven a truck through the whole concept of the WTO over decades and so I doubt anything will happen. Free trade deals are very much toothless, on the assumption that they are supposed to make sense on their own terms so enforcement is not required. But I can see the USA especially if Trump wins a second term deciding that Australia should be trade sanctioned for discrimination against US businesses. The White House won't want to see tech firms become piggybanks for failed industries and economies around the world.

<comment><USER42> "Pay for what you use" isn't a tax. Also, AFAIK the government gets none of this money, but I might be wrong on that.

<comment><USER43> The government gets this money back in a) "business lunches", gifts, etc; b) guaranteed industry "jobs" when their political careers end, which is far in the future due to; c) endless re-elections, as the entire media in this country exists as a Liberal Party PR firm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It might have the unintended social positive of Google not indexing or allowing people to link to news limited on their services.

</comment><comment><USER6> > A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy.

This part at the end is interesting. If this fight goes down that rabbit hole, bearing in mind filter bubbles, Cambridge Analytica etc. it may lead to a discussion worth having

</comment><comment><USER22> Google is totally in the wrong here, and ACCC is doing its usual good work of protecting the Aussie consumer. It's interesting to watch Google try to squirm out of this though - they probably see it for the precedent it is.

Google relies heavily on third-party content that they don't pay for in search results. If this law forces them to negotiate payment for that practice then I'm all for it.

<comment><USER45> I mean it's a search engine so it should rely heavily on third-party content in its search results.

Google links to these news sites in search results and drives traffic to them.

If Google grabs significant parts of news articles that users don't need to visit the sites, then Google should pay them. But Google is not doing that.

<comment><USER22> > If Google grabs significant parts of news articles that users don't need to > visit the sites, then Google should pay them. But Google is not doing that.

So what is AMP then?

<comment><USER46> The news site giving Google the article. As much as I dislike AMP... Google aren't the ones creating the AMP page.

<comment><USER22> > While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for > Google Search.

[https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about- amp](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp)

It's pretty blatantly the case that AMP provides a SEO boost. What hosting service could possibly compete with the speed at which Google can retrieve content from their _own_ servers?

That's the whole point of this legislation: to give news orgs means to stop Google from twisting their arm in this way.

<comment><USER47> Literally ANY content delivery network would be able to compete with google. AMP sites are sites that the companies themselves build for google(could be any cdn) to just cache.

The news organizations themselves gains a lot from google crawling and indexing their sites (which do cost google money) and now this legislation would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship?

<comment><USER29> > would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of > their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the > relationship?

This is _not_ what the legislation is about. This is about Google's practice of excerpting the actual content of the articles and putting it at the top of the page. Google is algorithmically republishing copyrighted content from these news orgs and hoping that surrounding it in quotes is enough to protect them.

<comment><USER48> You are ignoring that whether the snippets are shown is already entirely up to the news orgs. In fact I think they're the ones that decide what's in the snippets

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy.

This feels like a slap in the face. Whoever wrote this would be fully aware that our media sector is anything but healthy, and that our "democracy" flatlined years ago.

I can only imagine that this was written by a committee that was sinking beers and laughing their asses off as they watched this post go live.

<comment><USER49> Why are you air-quoting Australian democracy? Aussies have one of the healthiest democracies in the world--9th out of 167 ranked countries according to the EUI annual 'Democracy Index'.[0]

Is it posh to pretend to be misrepresented and/or oppressed nowadays?

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Inde...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Index_by_country_2019)

<comment><USER43> Do you live in Australia, or follow Australian politics?

If not, it may interest you to know that we once had a carbon tax. It wasn't stalled in the house or amended into nonexistence like a lot of politically charged law, but was _repealed_. The influence that the coal industry (leveraged by NewsCorp) has in this country is insane.

It may also interest you to know that Kevin Rudd, a previous prime minister, was (is) the subject of a relentless smear campaign on the part of NewsCorp. He was removed from power not by an election, but via a leadership spill brought on by the pressure exerted by Murdoch.

It may _also_ interest you to investigate how our second wave of COVID-19 is being reported in Australian media. The second wave began in Federally funded and operated aged care facilities; however has been branded entirely as the "Melbourne wave", pinning the blame on the Labour Party (the opposition to the party controlling the federal govt) and its state leader.

We _are_ misrepresented. The Democracy Index is published by The Economist. They may not be owned by NewsCorp, but you can be damn sure they feel their gaze.

<comment><USER50> The Labor party you speak of issued full-throated endorsements of metadata retention legislation as well as the encryption ban.

Forgive me for not picking up the violin.

<comment><USER43> Oh I know they're far from blameless, when my (Labour) MP voted in favour of that bill I was furious and she knew it.

I'm not trying to defend Labour in any way, but you'd have to be wilfully ignorant to not see the persistent assault on the party by our entire media; and more so to not see that it's working.

<comment><USER50> Why would you go to bat for an anti-encryption mass surveillance party despite it being against your morals?

They deserve everything they get for not representing a viable alternative. In 2020, it's not enough to be 98% the same as the other party with a few differences in policy minutiae.

If they get dragged by the media, good. They deserve worse after betraying the entire tech industry repeatedly.

<comment><USER43> ...remember when I said wilfully ignorant?

Because, we are in a two party system (practically if not technically). You seem to be glossing over the fact that the Liberal Party, who is the beneficiary of NewsCorps fuckery, are who introduced the AABill.

Labour, yes, betrayed not only the tech industry but the whole Australian public; but not out of malice, but because they're spineless sycophants who didn't want to look like they're protecting terrorists.

I know they say not to feed the trolls, but at least pretend to stay on topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> hihi

</comment><comment><USER14> Side issue, but... maybe Google can pay some tax in this country as a first step.

<comment><USER52> How much tax does News Corp, for whom this law is designed for, pay?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Let's put aside whether Google had justified concerns about this legalislation.

What's more appriopriate? Having a company incite the people in a foreign country to change laws or do it using diplomacy using experts in your state departement?

We are only talking about allied countries to the US because google doesn't do this with, for example, china, russia, north korea, etc...

I'm NOT advocating they should do this with those countries. Rather they should get out of the politics business or accept the regulations that come with it.

<comment><USER18> Problem is, once you get to a certain size, it's almost impossible to just "stay out of the politics" \- because other companies won't stay out of it. The whole reason this bill exists is because another American multinational company that pays no tax in Australia and owns 70% of the readership of Australian news media is very effective in its politics. And they didn't do it by telling the public to ask for it - they have close ties with politicians, they give favourable coverage, they take all the Government's leaks and publish anonymously, they will minimise stories the Government doesn't want published...

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> This whole thing is really weird. We're bending over backwards to try and accommodate Google being allowed to profit from other peoples content. How about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their own site?

And if we are truly believe "A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy." we need to punish both Google and content creators for publishing things that are demonstrably false. Fake News in otherwords.

<comment><USER55> > How about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their > own site?

News Corp is and always has been free to not have its content on Google ([https://www.robotstxt.org/](https://www.robotstxt.org/)). But that's not what they want, they want a Money just for appearing in search results. Seems more like a rent seeking for News Corp.

> We're bending over backwards to try and accommodate Google

The funny/bizzare bit is we are bending over backwards to accommodate 2 multinational American corporate monopolies that don't even pay tax in this country.

<comment><USER56> re: bananaface

> I don't like the news media but they can't just "not appear" on Google's > results. Google has way more leverage than them. Their choices are: accept > Google stealing your content and giving you some traffic in return, or die. > It's like saying, "you're free not to farm on your feudal overlord's land." > Where else are you going to go?

>

> The problem isn't a matter of rights, it's that Google has too much power. > Individuals can't exert any leverage, they have to accept Google's terms. I > don't think that's healthy, it's quite dangerous actually. The only way to > address that is a collective intervention.

The leverage is that you stop using Google to get news, no?

<comment><USER57> Stealing your content? A quick google search for "Australia news law" shows a top stories box with just a headline and a thumbnail. Similar thing with the news tab adds but it adds on about another 20 words from the first paragraph. Which part of that would you prefer them not to show?

Also, I did not see a single ad on either of those pages nor can I recall ever seeing ads when I was looking for news on google. The only money they are probably even making from news is when they send you to a news website that happens to use googles ad services and that's a symbiotic relationship. Even with collective bargaining, I cannot see this going any other way than how it did in germany or spain with either no fee or just delisting all news.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I am for any law or policy that hurts Google. And I really don't care whether it's fair or unfair.

I'm not sure any two companies have caused more worldwide carnage, in the history of the world, than FB and Google.

<comment><USER59> This is an idiotic attitude when the law is purely for the purposes of benefiting NewsCorp, who have surely done even worse.

If it gave consumers a better outcome, then maybe, but it won't.

<comment><USER58> It's not about choice. It's about destroying Google as a company. They are a spyware business that have destabilized the entire internet economy.</comment></comment></comment>


How to get to the frontpage of HN? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I read several articles on how I get to the front page of HN to present a product or whatever. It seems to be a mix of upvotes and the time it takes to get these upvotes. That's what I found out. What I didn't is which articles do really make it to the front page?! I dont seem to find any pattern after which this works.<p>I know I have a low karma. Is this of high importance when trying to get to the frontpage? <comment><USER2> _" What I didn't is which articles do really make it to the front page?"_

The articles that get to the front page are the ones that lots of people find interesting enough to upvote. If your product is really new and different, it might get that kind of response.

 _" I know I have a low karma. Is this of high importance when trying to get to the frontpage?"_

As far as I know, karma doesn't factor into the algorithm that decides if an article gets to the front page. There are occasionally articles from newly created accounts on the front page. However, if you're a well-known user with a reputation for posting good stuff, people might be more likely to click on your article.

If you're a new user, you might want to look at the Guidelines and FAQ links at the bottom of the page.

</comment><comment><USER3> Time of the day and day of the week can affect it.

[https://blog.rjmetrics.com/2012/10/24/how-to-get-on-the- fron...](https://blog.rjmetrics.com/2012/10/24/how-to-get-on-the-front-page- of-hacker-news/)

N.B. the graphs in the above page are not showing for me

<comment><USER4> Do you think that karma plays a role?

<comment><USER3> No, I'm pretty sure karma doesn't matter. If the content is really good, original & never posted before then it usually gets some sort of bump upwards. Whether it can make it to the front though isn't certain.

<comment><AUTHOR> That what I was hoping ;)...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> First off, post around 10 or 11am San Francisco time during a week day. Next if you're at a YC company, the accepted method is to spam everyone else in your batch, and tell them to find the link on the /newest page, and upvote. (Upvotes to direct links get ignored.)

<comment><USER6> For an example of this not working: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9402506](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9402506)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have high karma. Very few articles I submit make it to the front page.

<comment><AUTHOR> But it sounds, that some of them did...So congrats on that..That's really good :D</comment></comment>


HTML5 resume - <AUTHOR> http://www.victusspiritus.com/resume/marks_resume.html

<comment><USER2> Wow this is the ugliest thing I have ever seen. This is like re-creating the hell that is Powerpoint presentations on the web. List points fading in?

Ars to the rescue: [http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/06/study- powerpoint...](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/06/study-powerpoint- animations-are-comprehension-killers.ars)

Seriously I'd never send this to anyone, I'd be embarrassed.

<comment><USER3> Many engineers are not designers, and should not be judged as such. Constructive criticism is more helpful here than lambasting them for not adhering to your personal standards of UX.

<comment><USER4> While I agree with your second statement, your first is misplaced. There is a huge difference between "I'm an engineer, can't design, here's my resume(even my HTML5 resume)" and using oddly timed fade-ins, slides, text reflection, etc. etc.

If you try to put that much design in a resume, you get judged as a designer.

<comment><USER3> 2 days late; not sure if you'll still get a chance to read this. But, I'll bite.

As someone who's hired (good and bad) engineers in both UI/UX and back-end disciplines, my first impression of it was "Yeah, it's not pretty, but he does not allege to be a designer." At that point, I checked out the source code. It was not spectacular, but he did communicate an working grasp of the technology he professed to understand.

If this resume was judged in a biased lean towards UI/UX, my opinion is that you'd be passing up a potentially hard-working and dedicated employee. With a little help from a designer, this guy could possibly do great things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not very pretty. Gradients and serif fonts make it feel like a stock Powerpoint presentation - very 90s. Presentation breaks down on widescreen monitors (other slides are visible, and the text on them "jumps" when the slide becomes active). Scroll bars all over the place look really bad. UX is unintuitive - I clicked all over before figuring out to use my arrow keys. You could probably fix a lot of that with a little cleaner CSS.

Full marks for trying to find a new way to present a resume, but honestly, a recruiter is going to be annoyed at it more than impressed, I'll wager; resumes that slow you down and don't let you scan for pertinent information are likely to ding you for negative points. To offset that, the resume presentation needs to be _really_ impressive if you want to use it as a dual resume/portfolio entry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, will keep that in mind. Design an iterative process.

<comment><USER5> Absolutely. I don't mean to come across as harsh, but simply to provide my impressions as constructive criticism. I think the idea is really neat, since it can give you a chance to showcase some of your skills in a resume-relevant manner, but it does need to be executed really well to work right, IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting idea, but it was a UX nightmare. First thing I expected at least a subtle hint to use the arrow keys, instead of a click, spacebar or enter button to advance the slides.

If I advanced past the first slide using the arrow keys, and then came back, I had to press the back button 5 times just to get back to HN.

</comment><comment><USER7> Using Chrome 7:

Pressing right on the last page restarts the animation (and a vertical scrollbar is visible for a very short time).

Using Firefox 3.6:

There's a horizontal scrollbar on multiple pages (some stay even after animation ends, some disappear).

Both:

The "Professional Experience" page has a vertical scrollbar, which triggers a page flip, making said page unusable.

Also, it might be just me, but I find it fairly annoying that I can see half of the next page at all times, but when I switch to that page, it clears it and starts to animate. This looks very weird to me.

The colors are also... brr.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, I should hide the previous and next pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Professional Experience has a vertical scrollbar, but scrolling causes the slides to change.

Safari 5.0.1

</comment><comment><USER9> Pioneers frequently run into a barrage of criticism yet without pioneers prepared to face the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" (Thank you Will Shakespeare), progress of all kinds would be stunted if not non-existent. Even Galileo faced challenges in showing his ideas.

So while we may agree that we would perhaps not recommend this link to someone specifically interested in our resume, we would be very happy to recommend the link to anyone curious about this new fangled technology called HTML5.

Congratulations Mark on taking this option for a spin: From this foundation, no doubt, much improvement can be developed as and whenever the urge takes you.

</comment><comment><USER10> The biggest problem with this portfolio is not that it's not looking good. It lacks basic information how to navigate the site. I had to go to orginal fw page to notice i use arrow keys for navigation. Compared with this problem, everything else seems minor ;-)

If he is and engineer - not a webdeveloper then i don't see why it should be the nicest looking thing in the world.

<http://i.imgur.com/ZKSAJ.png> \- this is all I have to say.

<comment><USER11> Why is it Helvetica? Sort of negates the whole point of letting that handful of words speak for itself, doesn't it?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Props to Googlers, and Matt Nowack for the framework. Code is packaged here: <http://github.com/victusfate/html5-resume>

<comment><USER12> The comma placement on the second page is horrible!

More personal and subjective: Your choice of color (and a gradient) is inspired by powerpoint? Brrr.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> <http://gogglesdonothing.ytmnd.com/>

</comment><comment><USER14> Doesn't work with NoScript. What happened to graceful degradation/progressive enhancement?

</comment><comment><USER15> HTML4 resume: <http://nylira.com/p/cv>

</comment><comment><USER16> Almost unusable on Safari 4.05 (on OS X 10.5.8)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I thought it worked kinda funky on my phone and tablet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> typography is bad, try to avoid serif fonts, Use sans-serif fonts for better read.

</comment><comment><USER18> Does not appear to work at all in Chrome beta (v6) on this here MacBook Pro. That or I just don't understand how to start the animation. :-o</comment>


A review of the Google Glass web browser - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/google-glass-browser-html5-responsive-web-design

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure responsive web design is going to handle this. First a new viewing/display pattern has to be developed for this medium, then it can possibly incorporated into a universal scheme like responsive design once the new design pattern it has matured.</comment>


Will China Be Uber's Waterloo? - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/will-china-be-ubers-waterloo/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a somewhat more in depth report compared to the earlier submission of a Forbes report on the same subject: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10530897](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10530897)</comment>


Perspective on 3D printers from a mechanical designer - <AUTHOR> http://www.graehamdouglas.com/3d-printers-are-not-the-future-of-manufacturing <comment><USER2> Imagine this article, but in 1977 and replacing 3D printer with computer. It would have been wrong, because computers improved rapidly and got cheaper, smaller, faster, lower power, etc.

Almost all the reasons in the article are problems with the current price, size, and reliability of 3D printers.

Someday, there will be a machine that will whip out objects so easily that you'd use it to make a doorstop.

<comment><USER3> Nope the article does not focus so much on price. It says 3d printers are getting cheaper and cheaper. But his points are valid: just like it does not make sense to carve your own furniture for everything, it does not make sense to do 3D printing for everything in your house either, because you need different kind of materials for different kind of purpose and no 3d printer is going to be able to reproduce every kind of plastic used around you. Plastic is not just plastic, there are thousands of different polymers used in different industries. Not all of them could be used in a 3D printer setting (some can only be molded under high pressure and high temperature).

I may be wrong, but I think you are falling into the typical false technological assumption that a new technology will revolutionize everything just because it becomes available. I mean, look at computers. Even though they are becoming ubiquitous there are not computers in every object we use every day. A lot of our home equipment is still based on "stupid" electronics because it's good enough in most cases.

3D printers will become more common, more reliable and cheaper as the market develops, but when you can order something on Amazon for 3 dollars and have it delivered at your door in one day, there is a strong competition as to what is the best/most effortless way to get the thing in question. If your goal is to make unique objects that you cannot find anywhere, then, sure, 3d printers are the future, but most of us are living in environments where many things have been standardized, and products fitting these standards are readily available.

<comment><USER4> >> If your goal is to make unique objects that you cannot find anywhere, then, sure, 3d printers are the future

In reality, uniqueness is overrated. Given a really large pool of objects to choose from(which are manufactured in mid quantities) , there's not a lot of consumer need for unique objects.

The largest market consumers do need unique objects is the healthcare market. But the economics there are totally different. for example 3d printing of dental crowns existed for a long time , but it doesn't(yet) captured the market with lower cost solutions(although it certainly has the power to do so, technically).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 3D printers are a bit odd. In their current form, I will whole heartedly say no one will use them (short of the tinkerers and creatives). It's not like email where I can go on and connect with someone. It doesn't give me something that I didn't have before. I can't print the expensive things in my life, I can print stupid things like cups, cases, boxes, clips, holders, etc. Light things, cheap things. I can customize them, that is the huge thing 3D printing allows - customization. Short of that, it doesn't have any of the fancy flashery that electronics do.

This isn't to say that it won't happen, but it needs a new spin. It needs the 'killer app' that makes people want it. 1 Kg of ABS plastic (1.75 mm in diameter) is ~$30. PLA is more expensive, but it is renewable (~$45 / kg). It's not free to make stuff once you have one (it will last for a while, but you'll still need raw material).

They are slow, at least for 1D printers (filament printers are parametric printers, we move our nozzle in a line that gets longer with time). SLA printers are faster, way faster. They print planes at a time. They also can have better resolution. The trouble with them is that the liquid material is significantly more expensive as they are UV cured (so they need special handling, and whatnot).

I've been trying to think of something cool for what could be done with the situation (as it would get me a lot of money), but it's a hard problem. We're spoiled by how luxurious electronics are, how precise they are, and how little we have to think about how well they work. Little electro-mechanical things would be cool, and I could probably hand out a lot of personalized presents, but do I really need one in my house? Yes. Do my parents need one in their house? No.

<comment><USER6> _> I can print stupid things like cups, cases, boxes, clips, holders, etc. Light things, cheap things. I can customize them, that is the huge thing 3D printing allows - customization._

Yes, you can print all the cheap low-value add things we currently outsource to China and other low-wage countries, but you can also _personalize_ them.

That's a potential recipe for major disruption.

<comment><USER7> _That's a potential recipe for major disruption._

I can get a personally engraved iPod in a startlingly short period of time.

Lean manufacturing has been pushing towards the idea of pushing different things off the end of a production line for years. They'll carry on doing that. As the technology improves they'll integrate 3D printing type technologies into the supply chain.

Personalisation is certainly interesting - game changing in some instances almost certainly.

That doesn't mean that it's going to happen via 3D printers in your home. I find it hard to think about any kind of personalised object that I'm going to need urgently enough to print _now_ gosh darn it, rather than wait for next day delivery. Especially at the ongoing cost of another box taking up space in my house.

I might have one coz I'm a sad techie who loves fiddling with stuff... but that's not a mass market. That's in the order of magnitude of the home-CNC machine/lathe market.

I can imagine technologies that might hit a mass market. For example if printing and disposing of kitchen mugs / saucepans / cutlery / etc. becomes cheaper/easier/smaller than buying / storing / washing them up then I'd buy a 3D printer like a shot. That kills a major pain point for me. But nothing like that is even vaguely close.

I've yet to see any problem that will persuade 'normal' people to get a 3D printer in the home that's anything close to an implementable reality. I'd love to get educated if I'm wrong ;-)

<comment><USER6> I'm thinking more ~20 year horizon than next five years. I don't know if 3d printers will advance at the rate that transistors and microchips have, but I expect in ~20 years they will be able to do some interesting things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For the present time, 3D Printing is NOT revolutionizing the actual production of end products. However the decreased pricing and increased availability (3D printing has been available for a very long time at a high cost) of 3D Printing machines IS revolutionizing the very important part of the product life cycle....Design For Manufacture (DFM)[1].

Rapid Prototyping, Kanban, lean, agile, and other concepts that are revolutionizing software development were all concepts that developed in the Manufacturing world many years ago. 3D Printing is a very valuable tool for rapidly validating and testing designs....release early and often, get feedback, validate, etc.

Most products for the time being(once through the DFM process) will still get produced using traditional methods (Injection Mouldings, Castings, etc).

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability>

</comment><comment><USER9> I've paid for some prototyping runs on a 3D printer of very high resolution (16 micrometers x,y,z if I recall correctly) but I can't imagine wanting to own one. Unless something comes along that drastically changes their usefulness I think they will remain in the realm of the hacker's tool box.

It's not a matter of price coming down, or size, or speed. There's a lack of use cases. There's just no large scale need for everyone to be printing out their own custom widgets.

<comment><USER10> Not given our current way of life, indeed. Then again, our current way of life is based on the premise that things take time, effort, money, transport, and so on to get into our homes. But why would I need clothes, extra chairs, tableware, tools, and the like if I could just print them when I need them? What if it would become more economical to print common objects instead of having durable items? I would argue that there currently isn't a need because we organised around the idea of durability.

An interesting example in this discussion: Why do a lot of fast-food restaurants use disposable tableware and coffee shops disposable cups? Disposable cups don't make sense if it is impossible to make disposable cups that cost nigh to nothing. If you want to take coffee on the road, just stop at a restaurant, or take a thermos can from home. There is just no need for anyone to have disposable cups, that's just wasteful.

Once these cups became a possibility, however, the use-case of a coffee to go became reality. And with some interesting changes bubbling through society to boot, I think. Compare train stations of a century ago with train stations of today, for example. Or canteens in many a factory with those of 50 years ago. Or your office: where has the coffee lady gone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Disclaimer: I have only hobbyists knowledge of CAD and 3d printing

The author may be a mechanical engineer, but he certainly isn't an entrepreneur. The interesting question is not "Does it make sense for everyone to have a 3D printer now?" but "What kinds of things become possible once everyone has a 3D printer in their home?"

<comment><USER12> You are putting the cart before the horses. The first question is "why would anyone buy it?", and if you don't give an excellent reason for that, you will not see a 3D printer in everyone's home. And this makes your question about possible things as useless as a designer's contest (where most of the prizes are awarded for physically impossible designs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Printing hasn't replaced book-publishing, so there's little reason to think 3D-printing will replace traditional manufacturing.

However, I think he underestimates 3D printing's potential when he says its only for people with design skill. Some people may want the ability to print 3D models they find online, just like people print some PDFs nowadays. In fact, this could be much more useful.

<comment><USER14> This was exactly what I was thinking as well. To take the analogy further, computers are still used to a ridiculously large extent to prepare paper documents, and the software has become relatively easy to use with a little training. Similarly, I believe, there could be 3d-shape editors for regular people that make the design process for certain kinds of objects easy (such as, connectors, lego-like blocks etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Every point he makes is absolutely correct, and I think comparing them to computers as a rising technology is apples to oranges. For one computers made most of its improvements exponentially because the number of transistors doubled every 18 months. 3D printers don't have an equivalent part, like the transistor, that just simply scaling up makes things perform better. The things holding back are outlined in his article: limited choice of materials, lower quality of the part, slow print times, high cost for mass producing, inability to mass produce, etc. All of this will improve with time, but it won't be on the same time scale as computers.

Now there are somethings I don't think he discussed that change manufacturing because it requires imagining a different way of working. These are the more transformative changes that might have no previous equivalent to compare them to.

For example, the ability to have a de-centralized, agile work force. My wife worked for a company where the M.E. were in the states, but software teams were in Europe. They were constantly sending manufactured parts with people as they physically traveled between offices. It was far cheaper to do this than ship the boards and cases of manufactured products to the team. However, with a 3D printer they could email the CAD drawing to the other office and in a day they could print it out. This is a big change in how fast things could be turned around, and save $1000's of dollars, allowing them to iterate faster.

Another change is 3D printing molds for doing injection molding. Some rapid prototyping shops already do this today. Creating the molds is time consuming, but 3D printing gives you faster turn around. And also more complex molds. This plays to 3D printings strengths low cost for low volume one offs. The quality of the part could be a problem, but hopefully that will improve with time.

I agree with what the author said, but I see the real limit right now is our own imagination for how 3D printers enable us to do new things we can't do now. This is where I see 3D printers are like computers as making something that was impossible before possible. These are much harder to predict. In a way it wasn't just computers that transformed us as much as the internet. Maybe there a companion technology that changes much of these assumptions made.

If we find a problem that 3D printers do better than anything else some of his assumptions could really change. For example, his assessment of 3D printers in homes right now is 100% accurate, but there might be some application we didn't see today for which 3D printers push into the home without significant changes to technology.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your thoughts, you brought up a few points I hadn't thought of. I haven't worked in a international corporate environment but the collaboration ability is an interesting advantage. Printed injection molds are also interesting. I had a project that involved this but it ended up getting shelved before this step so I don't have much original or personal commentary on it.

I am hesitant on the argument of getting excited about 3D printing for as-of- yet unthought of uses. Its a fine argument for science exploring but if we are imagining the future or if I were an investor in 3D printers, a more concrete vision of how A becomes B is needed.

<comment><USER16> Very fast turn around, low quantity molds (~25 parts) is one of the few extremely promising possibilities for rapid prototyping. For speed you just can't beat the speed that you can get with this method, you can have fully functional parts in your hand a week after sending the model. You can turn around different hardnesses and colours in 2 days. I've used it, and it is a fantastic resource for experimentation with a part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This fits with things other people who have worked with 3D printers have told me. I would have liked to see longer timescales described though. How many of these points are going to change soon or not-so-soon? I've heard that prices aren't going down quickly enough to make it economical for everyone to have a 3D printer in their homes in the near future, but it would be nice to see what other people think and to know about other issues blocking widespread adoption.

</comment><comment><USER18> This article isn't saying that 3D printers aren't important, it actually acknowledges that they are already revolutionizing and democratizing the way new products are developed.

More striking arguments are unfortunately point in time statements, about the current capabilities of technology and the market maturity.

I am not saying that the CNC manufacturing will progress by leaps and bounds towards bringing $100K prototyping machines down to $2K in the next few years, but with increased focus on improving the lower end of the spectrum, and pushing its limits, we will actually find new uses for them as well.

I also don't believe that the ordinary person will go about designing their own parts. However, there will be a good market for people to hire designers, or for small time designers to collaborate to improve open source products.

e.g. One of the biggest ways that I see 3D printing and CNC in general as being important in producing parts replacements. How many times have you needed a broken or missing part for the affordable furniture that we buy from IKEA, Walmart, or Target?

As we use 3D printed pieces, we'll have to use materials which will perhaps be weaker, or in some cases unnecessarily strong but expensive. But, it will be fine, because it will do such amazing things we will not care.

</comment><comment><USER19> _As an aside on Kickstarter since I brought it up, it is interesting they recently banned virtual renderings of design projects. Rapid prototyping allows for moving from virtual models to prototyped models easily, quickly, and cheaply. The problem is that the prototypes in no way prove the company is ready to handle the demands of transitioning into production, or that the prototype has had any reliability testing._

\-- This was interesting aside

</comment><comment><USER20> There are lots of things in the toy, art, and spare part category that can use the 3D printing technology. Just like many other technologies, 3D printing will be adopted by designers, hobbists first. If there is enough demand, it will show up in shared workshop such as Kinko. It may or may not make into every home. Who knows. It really depends on if there is any killer app that drives the demand.

</comment><comment><USER21> There are products that can use the customization and one-off nature of 3D printing. You just have to think back to before mass production made everything the same.

I still like the example of clothing. Clothing may be good enough now, but people like it customized to them. Put a 3D photopolymer printer, 3D scanner, and some brandname designer in a shop in SF and watch a new trend appear.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've been thinking long and hard about getting a 3D printer recently. After doing some research on the kind of things that can be constructed with the low-end devices, I've decided against doing it. The things which these devices can make aren't very useful, because the material properties are just not that good with regards to overall strength, temperature range, etc..

I'm now looking at my options for 2D printing, such as cutting parts out of plywood, acrylic, and such. However, the lower cost CNC machines have a very small work area.

I'd really like to get one of those position-correcting routers as in the recent MIT video, or something else which would allow me to easily work with a 4x8 foot plywood sheet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Second the "build your own" CNC. A good friend recently made a 2x2 CNC that does a great job on wood and Halloween pumpkins for about $600. He did most of the structural pieces out of carbon fiber so it looks awesome but took some time. If you're building it yourself, it really doesn't cost that much to make a bigger one as structure and belts are not the expensive parts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> One of the greatest, long-term advantages of 3D printing I see is the ability to localize manufacturing. Figure out how to print materials we can make domestically, and suddenly stop importing thousands of products.

Imagine small local factories, filled with 3D printers and robots, run by skilled workers. Such factories would be capable of manufacturing thousands of different products for the people nearby on an ad-hoc basis. This could eliminate shipping costs, reduce waste, would make recycling easier, create jobs, increase GDP, etc.

<comment><USER24> Don't forget reduced inventory cost. No need for an auto parts store to a litany of rarely-purchased plastic parts if they can be printed at will.

Customization is the early killer app, but a world opens up as the material quality and speed improve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm so very glad, in a selfish way,that there is so much pessimism toward 3D printing. More money for the cunning.</comment>


Ask HN: I created a landing page to find potential customers. Any tips? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN! I'm working on a startup that sells datasets from ongoing Web crawls. I detailed more of what I'm doing here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1160408
I "tossed together" a landing page [ http://webscaled.com/ ] after reading an article on HN describing how the author met success selling e-books online. I'm trying to find potential customers now, mostly by tracking AdWords campaigns to see who is signing up for the newsletter.
Are there other ways that I can try to locate potential customers during this brief "landing page" period? Should I even attempt to contact other bloggers about my startup, or should I wait until the product is online? <comment><USER2> I'm actually at the same stage, so I can't offer too much advice, a few quick things.

1) I like your design, company name, branding, etc. well done

2) I'd re-write 'marketplace for datasets of the Web's structure, like the entire link graph (in chunks, of course)'. You didn't describe it that way in this post, you just said 'datasets from ongoing web crawls'. That is WAY easier to understand. I'd use that as a starting point. Just tell people what it is that the site does, or more important, what it can do for them.

3) along with the previous remark, your keywords can use some work. use the google adwords tool <https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal>. you've got 'datasets' when in fact, 'dataset' has 10x as many searches. I'm sure you can get better descriptors as well.

Keep up the good work!

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) Thanks! That's always the best feedback. ;)

2 & 3) I really needed outside perspective on this. It's been difficult verbalizing what I'm offering. I'm still working on the suggestions, but I've updated the page with a (somewhat) better description and with researched keywords.

Thank you for the feedback

<comment><USER2> Your description is getting better, but maybe somewhere have an example of something somebody could do with your dataset. For instance 'have you ever wanted to xyz on all the data from Acme company mashed with the data from AcMeToo, but didn't have access to that mass of data? well, now you can with Webscaled'...

Something like that. Also, check out <http://80legs.com/>, it seems like you're in a very similar market, but that you are pre-building the crawlers. They are a fairly well backed firm, so they've already put the time and money into some of the messaging, so use them to give you some ideas.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good stuff here. :)

I'm going to work on some use cases and put them on the landing page. Thanks again for your time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If I hadn't read your previous HN post, I would have no idea what your site does. It needs more descriptive content to clarify the immediate benefits of your app.

If you're running it on Adwords, unless you want your campaign slapped in a few days, you need: 1\. More text on page 2\. Privacy policy/ contact us on bottom 3\. Basic SEO- top keywords in h1 tags or at least in text

<comment><AUTHOR> It certainly seems to lack enough description. I'm going to add a few bullet points tonight that better describes the datasets I'm selling.

Thanks for the tip on Adwords. I'm going to add the privacy policy and a contact form tonight as well to cover my bases.

I haven't been too concerned with SEO at this stage, mostly because the domain is new, still sandboxed, and comprised of a single page. That is why I skimped on the meta description, and Google basically ignores meta keywords anyway.

Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> coderdude - I work at 80legs (<http://www.80legs.com>). Just messaged you via your contact form. We should talk about a potential partnership. It would make more sense to cooperate than to compete, as we are in the same market.</comment>


Most high tech companies are founded by founded by First/2nd gen immigrants - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/valaafshar/status/555560400092405760

<comment><USER2> I'm an immigrant - but this is nonsense.

Out of the top 10, only Google (1 out 2 confounders) and Qualcom (1 of 7 cofounders) I'd count as companies that were built by real immigrants.

Incidentally both are Jews whose families left persecution in Europe (Italy and USSR).

<comment><USER3> So this chart strongly suggests that we should seal the borders and chose only from the Chosen as the optimal immigration policy?

<comment><USER2> That's a logical fallacy.

Failure to demonstrate X does not necessarily imply that -X is true :)

I just hate BS - and this chart is mostly BS (ie Jobs is as much of a 2nd generation immigrant as Obama :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What percent of the US population is 1st or 2nd Gen immigrant? In the Bay Area, I would guess it is at least 50%.

<comment><USER5> "In 2013, over 40 million foreign-born representing 13% of the population resided in the United States." \- [http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings- now/posts/2013/09/w...](http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings- now/posts/2013/09/what-percentage-us-population-foreign-born) . See also [https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cspan_fb_slides.pdf](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cspan_fb_slides.pdf) .

Using that as a baseline (though it has changed over time) means the probability of having at least one foreign-born parent is 25%.

Of the remaining 75%, the probability that at least one of the grandparents is foreign born is 42%.

0.25 + 0.75 * 0.42 = 56% chance that someone in the US is a 1st or 2nd generation immigrant.

Sure enough, "60% of top 25 tech companies founded by 1st and 2nd generation immigrant" is almost exactly what's expected if a company is founded by a single person.

BTW, the table contains at least one error. It says that William Hewlett is not a first or second generation immigrant.

William Redington Hewlett's father was Albion Walter Hewlett. ([http://www.hewlett.org/about-us/hewlett-family- history/willi...](http://www.hewlett.org/about-us/hewlett-family- history/william-redington-hewlett) says that William was born in 1913 and the family moved to California in 1916 so his father could work at Stanford. [http://medicine.stanford.edu/faculty/hewlett.html](http://medicine.stanford.edu/faculty/hewlett.html) says "Doctor Albion Walter Hewlett, professor and executive head of the Department of Medicine from 1916 -1925".)

The 1910 census record says Albion and his wife were born in California. [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MLTH- RKY](https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MLTH-RKY) . It also says Albion Hewlett's father was born in England.

Therefore, Hewlett is a second generation immigrant.

<comment><USER4> Awesome, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Incredibly, incredibly misleading title.</comment>