Speak Up - Speaking mentorship - <AUTHOR> http://speakup.io/mentors.html <comment><USER4> This is a really cool initiative. I've been organizing Canada's largest student tech conference for a few years now, and one issue that comes up year after year is selecting engaging speakers (and how to be an engaging speaker is definitely a skill that can be learned). We end up skipping a lot of potentially interesting speakers because we either don't know, or can't be sure a few hundred university students will enjoy their talk(ing style).

The problem is definitely out there, and my best wishes to this project. You may also want to address the burden of proof for speaker qualification.

<comment><USER5> Excellent suggestion - suggestions on how? Filed: <https://github.com/jnoller/talk-mentorship/issues/11>

<comment><USER4> Usually I try to devise comprehensive solutions, but there are plenty of smart people on HN - so I'll just give my perspective here:

When picking speakers, we typically look for three things: 1\. Reach - <USER2> cool things have they done that'll make them interesting? 2\. Popularity - <USER3> well known are they? 3\. I they have reach and no popularity, will they be able to express what they've done in a way students will find awesome? Alexis Ohanian came to speak in CUTC 2011, and he was awesome, for example (although some would argue he was pretty famous too).

For #3, maybe something in terms of videos for each user in a centralized location

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's important to remember this is for men and women, to give them a safe environment with access to people who are willing to help them. We welcome people from any language/conference background.

Also, I wasn't don't fleshing out the site, so it's a bit raw still :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Great idea. I meet so many engineers who never took a speech class or simply don't know how to effectively present an idea to a group of more than one or two people.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm trying to figure out the best way to give 15-20 minute tech talks which are incredibly engaging. I can do normal meetings, elevator pitches (not as well as I'd like), and hour long talks, but I'd really like to master the 15 minute tech talk format.

I'm doing a 20 minute talk at RSA 2013 (traveling across borders with laptops/other devices), and running the 15-20 minute talks at BSidesLV 2013, so I'm trying to put together the resources for that.

It is tempting to also try to crack the 10 minute YC format (which I think is useful in other contexts as well -- maybe just the transition from elevator pitch into a breakout conversation?).

I haven't found any good advice, books, etc. on this. I've been watching TED talks, which are sometimes compelling, but fail to communicate technical content to a knowledgeable (if out of the direct field) audience, which is the target IMO. Someone with a decent engineering or science undergrad education, 5-10 years out, with a couple years of work experience, should be able to fully understand.

</comment><comment><USER8> It is a nice idea, but I am still skeptical on how somebody can improve his speaking skills just based on virtual "stuff". It is almost like learning to code just by writing out code by hand on a paper. This needs a lot of video integration in order to work.

Otherwise your local Toastmaster group is going to be a much more effective way to improve speaking skills.

<comment><USER9> I agree with your last sentence, but not everyone (who could eventually be a great speaker) can be convinced to do that.

90% of the battle can be won by becoming good at recording videos (without 101 takes), doing live webinars, or even setting up a regular YouTube channel. New speakers often battle with the _responsibility_ of speaking and being the target of multiple people's attention for a solid block of time. These battles can be fought virtually. (I'm a conference chair and have seen these battles fought and won.)

There'll still be work to do once one gets up on a stage or speaks "for real" but if one can get over 90% of the fear and do a lot of the work virtually, it could be a big win, especially for people who are initially too hesitant to attend something like a Toastmasters group. Virtual pep talks can work to a point, much like self help tapes.

<comment><USER5> Yup. That's the idea. Want to help out as a fellow organizer? We're lookin for this to help js, python, etc conferences

If we can get women, men - everyone, over that 90% hump and get them into the CFPs and systems for conferences and coach them through it all, it's a net win

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a lovely idea. If nothing else it gives conference organisers a place to point folk to who are nervous/new to speaking - which is a common question I get. Well done.</comment>


Review of 'Chaos Monkeys', Silicon Valley tell-all - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/business/dealbook/review-chaos-monkeys-is-a-guide-to-the-spirit-of-silicon-valley.html?ref=dealbook <comment><USER2> The OP mentions that the second half of the book chronicles the author's time at FB. This was excerpted in _Vanity Fair_ , and the HN commentary from early this month is here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11830108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11830108)

The _NYT_ reviewer in the OP was repelled by the author's pose ("The aphorisms are sometimes lazy, the facts can be sloppy, and the studied cool – all the while insisting that "I am the uncoolest person you will ever meet" – can be grating."), but ultimately able to get past it to the anecdotes and "directionally correct" analysis in the book.

You can note that the HN readership also had a similar reaction, with varying degrees of being able to move past the initial impression.

<comment><AUTHOR> One challenge is the most earnest writers usually make the most boring stories. This is also why the imperfect narrator is used so often in great literature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Most hilarious item is where the author states that we should have a conversation about whether startups are society's best use of our brightest graduates, i.e. Harvard Business School grads.

Somehow after years of complaining about financial services hiring all our promising mathematicians and physicist, this comment tickles me and puts me in my place at the same time. Sadly, I fear this was not intended as a joke

<comment><USER4> A significant proportion of Harvard Business School graduates (though by no means all of them) are people who are "ambitious" in a way primarily defined around money, social status, and power, rather than curiosity or societal contribution. They're going to inevitably be drawn to whatever field looks most promising for a lucrative and influential career.

It would be nice if we could economically rearrange society to amply reward careers in research, teaching, government, public-interest law, community organizing and development, providing social services, and so on (not to mention just regular jobs in factories, agriculture, retail, food preparation, etc.), so that doing work that benefited society was more attractive vis-à-vis zero-sum financial hocus pocus, predatory legal engineering, aggressive marketing/propaganda, internet surveillance, quasi-legal fraud, etc.

[My recommendation would be to dramatically increase taxes on land, inheritances, long-term capital gains, and carbon emissions, and redistribute the proceeds evenly to all citizens. And also to return anti-trust law to its roots and aggressively break apart monopolies and monopsonies, separate different types of financial activities to reduce conflicts of interest, and to dramatically increase funding for government regulatory agencies which are currently infinitely outclassed by industry.]

But that doesn't seem to be in the cards, in our current society. I'm not sure what can be done to help e.g. the kind of business school grads who have already decided that personal success is more important than general social welfare.

<comment><USER5> These money hungry HBS graduates perform jobs that are in themselves so boring, stressful and costly on a personal level that nobody would do them if it weren't for the large rewards they come with -- creating new technological infrastructure and organizations that supply society with the products and services it needs.

<comment><USER6> Do you mean jobs in finance? I'm not so sure society really needs most of the products and services finance generates.

<comment><USER5> Societies need financial infrastructure. Very little of it can be replaced with software, and innovations in finance is just as important to economic development as technology is.

<comment><USER6> While society needs a certain amount of financial infrastructure we can probably don't need the massive amount of finance biz that we have now.

 _" Market share[edit] US[edit] As of 2004 the financial services industry (finance industry) represented 20% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 in the United States.[citation needed]"_ \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_services)

As Warren Buffet once said: _" It has always been a fantasy of mine that a boatload of 25 brokers would be shipwrecked and struggle to an island from which there could be no rescue. Faced with developing an economy that would maximize their consumption and pleasure, would they, I wonder, assign 20 of their number to produce food, clothing, shelter, etc., while setting five to trading endlessly on the future output of the 20?"_ -Warren Buffet

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I came here to say that this line

"Underneath the braggadocio and evisceration of professional nemeses in Antonio García Martinez's book lies the beating heart of a formidable teacher."

is everything that is wrong with journalism. It is hard to read a single sentence after that, your brain just shuts off.

...but to copy that line I couldn't just select and paste because of the NYT's weird website, so I viewed the source. And then it hit even harder...

<meta itemprop="description" name="description" content="Underneath the braggadocio and evisceration of professional nemeses in Antonio García Martinez's book lies the beating heart of a formidable teacher." />

</comment><comment><USER8> Author here, for all your trolling needs.

<comment><USER9> Between physics at Berkeley, derivatives at Goldman Sachs, and analytics at Facebook, could you summarize their pros and cons in terms of intellectual challenge and work/life balance?

<comment><USER10> I'd love to know about the work life balance. In an industry where burnouts are common, and your work history being some of the most demanding companies in the industry, how did you handle it?

<comment><USER8> I drank a lot, and did stupid things. It was really self-destructive. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Really.

<comment><USER11> All of them? Or one in particular?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> At ~$100k, a 40-foot sailboat seems like a reasonably affordable option for housing in SF.

<comment><USER13> "It's a trap!"

There is nothing about a boat that saves money, ever. It's an incredibly rewarding hobby if you're into it, but not cheap!

<comment><USER14> "If it flies, floats, or fucks you should rent it" is the common advice passed around by jaded and wealthy divorced men that I know.

<comment><USER15> Also a quote by Dwayne Johnson in the show Ballers... though I think he added "drives" as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I couldn't get through the first paragraph of that review. I'll try a sample of the book, but that NYT piece was utterly unpleasant.

<comment><USER8> Well, we agree on that one! I think he just didn't like the voice, but couldn't admit it wasn't enlightening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you were building a company, would you recruit your colleagues from Berkeley, GS, or FB, and why?

<comment><USER8> Preferably all three. But I definitely think Berkeley grads are relatively underrated to Stanford ones.

<comment><USER18> I have access to a job market where the major employers are Investment Banks and that's where I have been employed for some part of my career. I am thinking of moving to technology-first employers... will it make any change to my life or is it a futile dream ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not sure if anyone else has noticed this pattern but I've seen it in a number of NYT articles that I would like to aggregate. There are seemingly offhanded paragraphs that ignore the issue at hand and insert something pro-NSA/pro-weak crypto.

From this article take the second to last paragraph.

 _At the least, readers of "Chaos Monkeys" will think twice before taking at face value tech leaders' high-minded arguments for refusing to assist our national security apparatus in fighting terrorist threats. Even in the area of advertising, important social and public policy questions are implicated._

This comment hardly fits into the theme and flow of the rest of the review.

<comment><USER20> Yep, I noticed that. A completely biased view to a very important matter. Completely overlooking the dangers of weak crypto, government invasion of privacy and safe control of access to information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have question about the replicating portfolio analogy that the author makes with respect to getting Facebook to match Twitter's offer. Could he have (successfully) bargained for a replicating portfolio on an after-tax basis? In other words, since Twitter was paying with stock options, which are more tax- efficient than Facebook stock grants, he could have argued that Facebook's overall compensation package needed to be much more to really match Twitter's.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Even where Mr. García completely mangles the facts – as he does for instance in describing the mechanics of the Facebook initial public offering – he manages to draw multiple fresh insights that somehow feel directionally correct."

I find it hard to read this other than as "It's bullshit, but but bullshit that reinforces my prejudices."

</comment><comment><USER23> _" Beyond the author's personal story, what connects the two distinct halves of the book is his area of actual domain expertise: advertising. Mr. García was a Ph.D. student in physics at Berkeley before joining Goldman Sachs to model prices for credit derivatives."_

That's so fucking depressing.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you rationalize working at an ad-tech/tracking company? - <AUTHOR> I work at a large ad-tech/tracking company that's ruining the internet (not FAANG, but in the next tier). Me personally - this is my first job post-undergrad. I tell myself that I need the money, and I'll only do it for 2.5 years, until I have the savings/skills/experience to branch out and do something relatively more meaningful. <comment><USER2> Sure the ad-tech industry sucks. But they do use a lot of very interesting technology. If you are working for some of the better ones or more innovative ones, they will be using massively parallel computing, geo-based location services, machine learning, and have a pretty significant foot print on AWS or Google Cloud Services. Every single one of those is a lucrative career onto itself. Learn as much as you can! Think of it as the best 2.5 years of paid training you will get. Either be a master at one of those or be a generalist and learn enough in each of those to be able to make a contribution. In 2.5 years you will be able to name your price and pick the industry you would like to be a part of. With the bonus that you will be have enough tech knowledge to start your own company should you decide to.

I worked for two ad-tech companies and they both taught me more about the craft of software development then any school or the previous 13 years of me working in corporations did.

As long as the company you are working for is not doing anything illegal or fudging the numbers, I don't think you need to justify anything.

Embrace the job, learn everything you can, and then you will be shocked how valuable you have become. Remember - you are trading your time for a paycheck. It is upto you to make sure that time is well spent and that it benefits you as much as the company you work for.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been building web analytics services for roughly 15 years.

Each one started as scratching an itch. I built my first web stats service back in the time before Google Analytics, when anything more complicated than a basic Apache log analyzer cost money I didn't have. The information tracked (referring URLs, pages viewed, time on site, bounce rate, language of each visitor, etc) is information that's been transmitted and logged since the very first web servers. That's now a freemium service with a couple tens of thousands of users, called W3Counter.

7 or 8 years ago a relative of mine opened a B&M store with a companion online store, and I built several products to help him run that, including a new web stats service that included ad and conversion tracking to show which ads (Google AdWords, Bing Ads, Facebook, etc) were generating which sales. That's now a premium service with a couple thousand users and marketing agencies, called Improvely.

None of this involves tracking people around the web or combining information from multiple websites using third party cookies. Just providing website owners with information about what happens on their own website. But both of my products are commonly included in those "ad-tech landscape" infographics with the thousands of companies on them every year.

Am I supposed to feel bad about that and need to rationalize it? Because I've never felt that way. Keeping track of which pages of your site are most popular, which ads are generating sales, which other sites are linking to yours and sending you traffic, seem as simultaneously essential and innocuous to me as the information B&M stores have when they track how many people walk in the door, what products are selling fastest, which circulars are bringing them sales by tracking coupons, which customers are their repeat customers and what they buy, etc. Their "tracking cookie" is simply your credit card or the grocery store loyalty card you scan every time you check out.

<comment><USER4> OP counts tracking conversions with the FB pixel being part of the evil ad tracking syndicate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wouldn't rationalise it, but I would at least understand if you need the money - I myself have done things that I'm not too proud of when times were tough.

But when you're in a position to leave, please do so.

</comment><comment><USER6> Ad tech is ruining the internet? That's a very narrow way of looking at it. Ads are what kept the internet open and allowed it to grow into what it is today - without ads, you would see nothing but paywalls everywhere.

<comment><USER4> This. People use ad supported sites because they're interesting or useful. They are useful because they have ad funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are other jobs not an option for you? A lot of times, if you already have a job, the other jobs you'll find will be a step up from there. Why wait for 2.5 years to pass?

</comment><comment><USER8> I think part of the problem is every industry has a dark side. As with everything eventually it becomes a race to the bottom.</comment>


Scott Chacon, CIO of Github, The Future Of Work [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUgXRSSREA&feature=youtu.be

<comment><USER2> great talk

<comment><USER3> He really has a lot of great thoughts/questions in it. Especially with regard to management & how we could create software can ease their burden so they can focus on more interesting work.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: good, quick algorithms course to prepare for big tech interviews? - <AUTHOR>

I'm going to be interviewing for a professional work experience year as a university student (engineering) at several big software tech companies. I studied mainly electrical engineering, and it's been a while since my computer science algorithms days. I've still coded pretty much every week, but I can't remember specific stuff like merge sort, binary heaps, etc (plus I don't know what I need to know).
I hear algorithms-type questions come up a lot, so I would like to prepare really well as quickly as I can. What good sources would HN recommend?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Programming Interviews Exposed is great: [http://www.amazon.com/Programming- Interviews-Exposed-Secrets...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Interviews- Exposed-Secrets- Programmer/dp/047012167X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316401982&sr=8-1)

<http://www.careercup.com/> is also helpful.

Lastly you can look around <http://programmers.stackexchange.com>

</comment><comment><USER3> I like Cracking the Coding Interview: [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Coding- Interview-Fourth-Progr...](http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Coding-Interview- Fourth- Programming/dp/145157827X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316406288&sr=1-1)

And The Algorithm Design Manual by Skiena: [http://www.amazon.com/Cracking- Coding-Interview-Fourth-Progr...](http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Coding- Interview-Fourth- Programming/dp/145157827X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316406288&sr=1-1)

<comment><USER4> I think second link (Skiena) is the same as first one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you can't remember merge sort, quick sort or heaps, a easy starting point is wikipedia, and then code them up in your language of choice. It shouldn't take long, and you'll learn it better by doing than by reading about it.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you have time, get Programming Pearls by Jon Bentley ([http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Pearls-2nd-Jon- Bentley/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Pearls-2nd-Jon- Bentley/dp/0201657880/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316401385&sr=8-1))

<comment><USER7> This isn't the only prep that you'd need, but this is a good one to get your mind in the right place.

(I've given ~2 "big tech" interviews a week pretty solid for the past 6 years)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> [http://openclassroom.stanford.edu/MainFolder/CoursePage.php?...](http://openclassroom.stanford.edu/MainFolder/CoursePage.php?course=IntroToAlgorithms)

This course is CS 161 at Stanford: Intro to Algorithms. It's got a lot of short videos, so you can pick which ones you wanna watch. Also, I took the class, the prof is really good.

<comment><USER9> Thanks a lot for posting this. I love that the lectures are broken up into smaller chunks, it makes the whole subject much easier to watch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a GRE Subject Test for Computer Science that covers broad set of questions:

[http://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/computer_scienc...](http://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/computer_science)

You can use this as your guidance.

Here is a practice test that you can look into. It has some questions on algorithms: <http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/CompSci.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER11> For out of college candidates you have two dominant types of problems: algorithms, and data-structures.

<http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/170/> [http://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,d,Computer_Science,63...](http://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,d,Computer_Science,63AE13B304CE443E)

</comment><comment><USER12> I have just started reading the bible of algorithms:

[http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual-Steven- Skiena/...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual-Steven- Skiena/dp/1849967202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297127794&sr=8-1)

Not a quick win but a comprehensive, in-depth algorithm book :-)

<comment><USER13> I've heard good things about that book, but to be fair The Bible Of Algorithms can only be Knuth's TAoCP.

<comment><USER14> The bible is definitely TAoCP, but its a little long to read before an interview, maybe select sections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In terms of ways to exercise your knowledge, go through old ACM Programming Competition questions too. They'll most likely be harder than you'll get in a phone or whiteboard, but it gets you in the mode of thinking for it (finding the fastest solution, smallest space, etc...):

<http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acm/ProblemSetArchive.html>

Also, poke around GlassDoor (<http://www.glassdoor.com>). There's "interview reviews" up on there, and for larger companies, a lot of times there's just straight up questions and answers. So that can give you a good feel of who's asking what level of stuff. It's somewhat grain of saltish since a lot of the reviews seem to end with "no offer given", but it's still interesting.

</comment><comment><USER16> Judging by your choice of word, I think you might be a University of Toronto student. If you're a University of Toronto student doing the PEY program, then the tech interview for the big companies should be pretty easy. I think the hardest they managed to throw when I was doing interviews for PEY was how to reverse a string in Java.

If you're aiming for smaller companies or startups, they actually have harder technical questions.

Also, don't skimp on the preparation for the non-technical part of the interview. Prepare to answer soft questions (e.g. your previous team work experience, etc), practice talking about your past project experiences, practice making eye contacts and sounding confident, etc.

</comment><comment><USER17> I would highly recommend reading Programming Pearls by John Bentley. It is an eye opener and gives you too the point tricks to solve problems that companies generally ask.

<http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/pearls/> They have a book too.

Also, there is careercup.com. Fantastic site if you want to get a feel of what sort of questions are asked in different companies.

</comment><comment><USER18> For a concise, very readable book that I've used to get myself up to speed with algorithms in preparation for interviews you can try reading Algorithms by Papadimitrou, Dasgupta, Vazirani. You can grab a pdf at [Papadimitrou's website][1].

[1]: <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vazirani/algorithms.html>

<comment><USER19> This is the book used for an Algorithms Analysis class at my university (Brigham Young University), and I have been very impressed so far with it. The fact that it is available for free is a great plus as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you have time you can practice at <http://www.topcoder.com> or also <http://projecteuler.net/>

</comment><comment><USER21> I heard good things about "Algorithms For Interviews" by Adnan Aziz and Amit Prakash - [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Interviews-Adnan- Aziz/dp/14...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Interviews-Adnan- Aziz/dp/1453792996/) (about $20)

</comment><comment><USER22> You might want to try <http://www.spoj.pl/> \- there's a repository of algorithmic puzzles and you can submit your solutions in a number of programming languages.

</comment><comment><USER23> some online materials and books: [http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most- learner-friendly-reso...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-learner- friendly-resources-for-learning-about-algorithms)

some interview questions: [http://www.quora.com/What-questions-are-Java- Software-Engine...](http://www.quora.com/What-questions-are-Java-Software- Engineers-seeing-the-most-of-on-technical-interviews?q=java+inter)

<comment><USER24> Agreed! The Links are great!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I like the Algorithm Design Manual by Skiena</comment>


NET Core instead of Nodejs – claimed 2000 percent increase in throughput - <AUTHOR> https://customers.microsoft.com/en-US/story/raygun <comment><AUTHOR> sounds great, but is Nodejs really becoming slower? Were they just using it wrong?

.NET Core does sound attractive to an old .NET dev like me (I really like C#) but I can't see that an apples to apples comparison across the board would result in such a wild difference for all applications, am I wrong?

<comment><USER2> Most of my apps spend the majority of the time waiting for persistent storage or network. I'd prefer to deploy on a 8-socket, 192-core, 12 TB RAM monster than to rewrite everything in C#. It'd probably be cheaper too.</comment></comment>


Countries With Zero Rating Have More Expensive Wireless - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/countries-zero-rating-have-more-expensive-wireless-broadband-countries-without-it <comment><USER3> "What is zero rating?" you might ask. (I did). This is the process of ISPs offering free carriage of exclusively particular traffic. e.g. T-Mobile's "unlimited [downsampled] youtube" offering, Facebook's free internet (offered in India IIRC), Amazon's whispernet for Kindle.

<comment><USER4> It's an ugly anti-competitive symptom of the actual disease - data caps. Curing the symptom helps marginally. What needs fixing is the disease.

<comment><USER5> What exactly is "anti-competitive" about data caps? They're just a form of congestion pricing. Congestion pricing is now widely considered desirable for things like roads. Now, ideally, we would have fine grained congestion pricing with fees kicking in based on tower occupancy level. But customers would probably find that too unpredictable.

Moreover, congestion isn't the only cost to account for. Take the total number of dollars of capital and maintenance costs of the network over it's useful life and divide by the total number of bits sent during that useful life. That produces a cost per bit that seems quite reasonable to apply to customers based on how many bits they send.

<comment><USER6> If an ISP is the only game in town, and they zero rate their streaming service but put a cap on Netflix it is anti competitive.

The problem with your roads analogy is that there's more than one road to take. Not all roads are tolled.

And the cure isn't getting rid of data caps, the cure is increasing competition on a local level.

<comment><USER7> The physical RF spectrum is the local road. There are no more roads to take. No amount of economic policy supporting competition is going to bend the laws of physics, unless you're willing to shovel herculean amounts of resources into microcells (even smaller than 5G cell sites) to reduce contention (essentially replacing fiber and wifi).

<comment><USER8> National network + eSIM. Retailers compete on providing better internwtional traffic (pretty much as it is now with broadband in many countries).

<comment><USER7> Your suggested solution does not address the local cell network contention issue zero rating attempts to mitigate.

<comment><USER9> How does zero rating "attempt to mitigate" local contention issues? Zero rating does not reduce local network traffic.

<comment><USER7> Forcing lower bandwidth versions of video and audio streams reduces local spectrum use. Do I really need anything above 480p on my iPhone? Probably not, so the carrier incentivizes me with zero rating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Step 1: Convince everyone that the goals of anti-trust are low prices, not breaking up the consolidation of corporate power.

Step 2: Cripple the regulatory powers of the government by convincing everyone that government is the problem.

Step 3: Soak your now captive customers in a regulatory friendly / competion- free environment.

<comment><USER4> What's wrong with low prices though? Those who are fighting anti-trust try to claim that it restricts free market, while in fact these liars are themselves restricting it through monopolization.

<comment><USER11> Because step 3 involves _higher_ prices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How much of this is due to in places with cheap wireless offering zero rating won't be as effective at attracting customers as it would be in a place with expensive wireless, hence you are more likely to see it offered in places with expensive wireless?

For instance, T-Mobile's "Music Freedom" zero-rates a whole bunch of music streaming services. In the US, where data is expensive, that could easily cause someone to pick T-Mobile over one of the other providers, if they listen to a lot of music. With "Music Choice" I can get by on the smallest data plan. Without it, I'd have to step up, maybe even to unlimited.

In a country where data is cheap, something like "Music Freedom" wouldn't make much difference, and so I could see less ISPs bothering with the technical and administrative overhead of having such a program.

<comment><USER13> This is putting the cart before the horse. Competition is what drives down prices. When companies aren't allowed to zero rate content then they're all offering more or less the same product so they have to compete with each other on price.

Also keep in mind that zero rating is itself an explicit admission that network capacity and overhead aren't factors in the price. The whole deal is that the wireless company lets customers on those plans use unlimited data at no extra charge as long as it's for zero rated content. Allowing customers at that same price point to use that same unlimited data without arbitrary restrictions would ultimately be just as profitable.

<comment><USER14> >Also keep in mind that zero rating is itself an explicit admission that network capacity and overhead aren't factors in the price.

No, that's not what that means. You can easily take special means to get direct peering to zero rated partners or install CDNs so that zero rated traffic does have any impact on peering links. Congestion at the last mile is only a small part of what an ISP deals with.

<comment><USER15> For wireless carriers it's all about the last mile. You can only get a certain amount of data within a certain amount of spectrum. Yeah I know I'm butchering the explanation. It's been over 20 years since I studied it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While it is interesting to read this, there are a lot of confounding variables. Chances are countries which would allow zero ratings in the first place would also be more tolerant of other incarnations of excessive market power.

Note, that in spite of my opposition to net neutrality, I strongly support using traditional antitrust mechanisms to prevent firms' excessive market power and last mile monopolies from leading to unfair prices.

<comment><USER17> I had the same thought. The first paragraph concludes: _And the evidence is in that it conclusively makes broadband more expensive_ , but this seems a bit much given the confounding variables you mention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I get the feeling that the authors of this report are not entirely honest. For example, part-way through they make this claim about Portuguese operator MEO's plans:

"Using applications participating in the DPP is two up to 77-fold cheaper compared to using applications via general data volume. This strong incentive for customers to use participating applications infringes on the rights of consumers to use applications of their choice and the rights of CAPs to provide services independent of the origin of their users."

Up to 77 times more for neutral data than data to their partners - <USER2> scary, but how do they get that figure? Well, they take MEO's smallest month- to-month contract which offers 250 minutes + SMS + 500 MB of data + free in- network calls, divide the amount of data by the total cost, and compare this with the nominally 10 GB Smart Net addon which _only_ offers data to the included services. That is, they're treating the phone and SMS part of the all-internet plan as though it costs nothing when it definitely does not.

I think the two-fold cheaper figure on the lower end is wrong too - on paper the non-neutral Smart Net is more like three times cheaper than comparable prepaid data, at least for people who make good use of the Smart Net data limit. Bear in mind that as I understand it each Smart Net plan is for access to _one_ of Messaging, Social, Video, or Music, which includes a handful of the main sites in that category. I imagine most people will have usage that is relatively low and spread across multiple categories plus some outside-of- package usage, in which case a general internet access plan will work out cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone know who regulates Comcast/Xfinity in California? I'm a cord cutter and with 4K video becoming more popular, I've almost hit my 1TB data cap twice in the last year. Comcast/Xfinity is illegally promoting their video services by delivering it over the same network, but zero rating their content, while charging customers overage fees for using 3rd party video services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video.

I filed a complaint with the California PUC and they told me they don't regulate Comcast/Xfinity because they are not a landline telephone service.

It seems horrible that there might not be any regulator that is keeping Comcast/Xfinity from harming consumers like myself.

<comment><USER20> Do they offer a higher data cap plan?

It seems like the problem as you're phrasing it is that they are deliberately harming consumers -- it costs them the same to deliver the content whether via Netflix/Hulu or their own services, but they are choosing to overcharge customers to force them into their own service.

An alternative way of looking at it is that their own service is offering a subsidy -- bumping you up implicitly to a higher tier in exchange for using their service.

In the latter case, it's not really abusive; they're offering an enhancement; the "actual" price is the next tier up, but you're getting a "discount" in exchange for preferring their own video service.

Which is to say that this is awful behavior, and nothing is more frustrating than the fact that (the lack of) competition makes it so that it is nearly impossible to switch to another internet provider that does not engage in this kind of monkey business. The other problem is that I think many customers prefer this model -- they're willing to make the sacrifice and get the subsidized package rather than shell out the extra money. I'm certainly guilty of this; avoiding paying minuscule subscription fees for websites even though I hate the ads. The value of my hatred is still lower than the cost of the subscription.

<comment><USER21> Comcast "charges" its media arm wholesale less than retail price it charges users to download Netflix content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> IMHO net neutrality and zero rating are just the tip of the regulatory iceberg.

The really hard work of the regulator is to ensure that telcos don't abuse their access to spectrum and other resources. IMHO the best way to do this is to force telcos to give each other access to their infrastructure at a reasonable price. For example, when margins* are high enough, new virtual telcos must be able to start up with minimal infrastructure.

The consumer side does not need a lot of regulation. If there is enough competition, consumers will vote with their money.

Edit: Changed "prices" to "margins".

<comment><USER5> That is not the best way. Defining "reasonable price" is extremely difficult and that's one thing the market does much better than the government. The history of regulation in the 20th century, not just in the US but all over the world, is a pattern of governments ditching the idea that they can calculate the "reasonable price" and impose price controls, and moving to more market- oriented mechanisms for regulation.

In the case of wireless, where there is no natural monopoly, the best approach is to simply open up lots of spectrum and ensure there are a sufficient number of competing carriers. There is a ton of spectrum being wasted for things like television that could be used for broadband instead.

<comment><USER22> It just seems to me quite wasteful that there are so much telco infrastructure is duplicated (redundant): For example digging along the same street more than once to lay fiber. Or have cellular towers from different companies next to each other.

On my last visit to the US, I used both "Straight Talk" and "Trac Phone". These are virtual telcos that use Verizon/AT&T and T Mobile infrastructure. New customers can choose a SIM card before activating the service.

Surely the prices paid by these virtual telcos are set by the regulator.

Here is South Africa, the third and fourth mobile operators roam on the first and second mobile networks. AFAIK, the regulator force these roaming agreements apon the operators. (Here I can get 50 GB of prepaid data for only R500 = $38. Much cheaper than the US!)

So there are ways to set prices.

<comment><USER5> > It just seems to me quite wasteful that there are so much telco > infrastructure is duplicated (redundant): For example digging along the same > street more than once to lay fiber. Or have cellular towers from different > companies next to each other.

That was the basis of a lot of early 20th century regulatory thinking. That was thoroughly discredited because it turns out that government price controls are worse than duplicated infrastructure.

Governments only have an incentive to keep prices low, which is not the same as the economically efficient price. From the government's point of view, it's better to have cheap 3G networks forever than to have prices that lead to investment into 4G and 5G networks. Low prices kill innovation, which is why all the innovation is happening in IPhones and Macs and Surface tablets and not cut-rate Acer and HP products.

MVNO pricing is not set by regulators. The FCC's last major foray into rate regulation, in connection with DSL loop unbundling, ended up killing DSL as a viable competitor to cable because wholesale prices were set so low there was no incentive to upgrade DSL networks.

<comment><USER23> > That was the basis of a lot of early 20th century regulatory thinking. That > was thoroughly discredited because it turns out that government price > controls are worse than duplicated infrastructure.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

<comment><USER5> You don't have to take my word for it. Read up on the history of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the insane things it used to do (regulate rates for air and truck freight). Read how companies like UPS came into existence after those things were deregulated. Read how most of the western world followed suit in the 1980s and 1990s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> luka-birsa Reading the comments bellow its really funny to hear all this bull about caps being there to protect the providers and their lack of capacity.

I have 300 mbit link for 50 USD and no caps. I have full lte and 2TB downlink cap for 25 USD.

But we do have strong competition and it seems it was never about capacity. Its about who offers more. Its obvious that they can afford this since nobody is loosing money, and all of this on a very small and marginal market where isps purchsing power is small.

You are being bullshited to, dear Americans.

</comment><comment><USER24> What about country with more expensive wireless have zero rating ? If wireless is cheap, you can afford to pay it so zero rating would have no 'client'.

</comment><comment><USER25> This report is particularly suspect. First of all zero-rating is not banned in the EU, and it's not clear which countries are included in the "has zero- rating" basket. The more likely interpretation of their data is that "in countries with shitty internet, providers tend to offer a lot of zero-rating offers". E.g the internet is vastly better in romania than in greece yet they both have a lot of "differentially rated" offers

Then they only show two years , 2015 vs 2016, where there is a slight increase of 2% in prices , without error bars. Then there is this:

> we repeated our analysis for zero-rating offers introduced in 2016 or 2017. > However, initially this did not produce statistically signifcant results in > any category. Closer examination of the data however revealed Finland to be > an outlier market, in which the replacement of a single offer signifcantly > changed the prices in almost all data volume aaskets. This is likely due to > the fact that unlimited data plans, which do not sensibly admit a price per > gigaayte calculation, are prevalent in Finland. We therefore repeated the > analysis but excluded Finland from our dataset. In this case, we found a > statistically signifcant result (p=0.04) for markets in which zero-rating > was introduced between 2015 and 2016. These markets showed a 1% price > increase between 2016 and 2017, whereas markets without zero-rating in both > cases showed a 10% price decrease.

I think they are stretching it with p=0.04 on a cherrypicked sample of n=30, and present a rather peculiar conclusion about their data. Zero rating is obviously marketing garbage, but i am very unconvinced that it is the reason why ISPs are not investing in their networks.

(It also took 10 minutes to download their 5MB pdf - talk about bad internet ;) )

<comment><USER26> > _The more likely interpretation of their data is that "in countries with > shitty internet, providers tend to offer a lot of zero-rating offers"._

I agree. They even seem to admit it's a pretty suspect analysis:

 _" However, since zero-rating offers are now prevalent in almost all EU countries this analysis cannot be extended into the future."_

<comment><USER27> It's been slow but Telia (first proper zero rating court case in the EU afaik) lost in the national courts in September, with the courts referring to EU regulation from 2015.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> after reading this article, i have come to view zero-rating as a form of branding. basically, the internet providers are trying to take a step away from the forces of commoditization. once i viewed it that way, it's pretty predictable that the price for the same exact service will be higher than if zero-rating were disallowed.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have my doubts whether or not this an apples-apples comparison. EU tends to have extreme regulation and also lofty subsidies. Nevertheless, I agree with the assertion that zero-rating is an anticompetitive practice. Actually rating in general just kind of stinks. Billing this way has lead to the current situation.

</comment><comment><USER30> Be cautious of getting causality claims from studies like this that don't try to control for anything

</comment><comment><USER31> Highly anecdotal but while visiting Lithuania I had a prepaid SIM card with 200 local call minutes and 6GB of (quite fast) LTE data + unlimited Facebook (including Messenger) and Spotify for 3 Euros for 30 days, SIM card included.

</comment><comment><USER32> Obviously in countries with poorer wireless infrastructure there is more reason to use zero rating to expand coverage...

</comment><comment><USER33> I pay 35€ a month for 16GB LTE.

Is this expensive?

<comment><USER34> It can certainly be much cheaper. I pay 17€/month for "unlimited" LTE (includes 9GB EU roaming) and this at ~75 Mbit/s up/down speeds in most cases. Now it's hard to say what "unlimited" actually means in numbers, as it's just defined as _reasonable usage_ in the terms of service. However as another data point, the next cheapest plan is 100GB LTE for 15€/month, so I assume unlimited is at the very least above 100GB.</comment></comment>


Classic Programmer Paintings - <AUTHOR> http://classicprogrammerpaintings.tumblr.com/ <comment><USER2> This is very amusing</comment>


Volunteers teach AI to spot slavery sites from satellite images - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2138163-volunteers-teach-ai-to-spot-slavery-sites-from-satellite-images/ <comment><USER2> lot of opportunities similar to this. Flag satellite images with villages appearing to be poor. Parachute down donated supplies automatically with drones. Just randomly send bits of wealth across poor villages in africa/india</comment>


Ask HN: do people see me as a soft target? - <AUTHOR>

Long story short: people often contact me with ideas for websites/software that they want me to build in exchange for a small amount of money (hundreds of dollars) or small share of equity in the next 'Facebook killer' (typically around 25%).  Their contribution can effectivly be summarised as "I'll be the ideas guy".
I'm not the most assertive person in the world and I wonder if people get in touch because they think I'm someone they could easily exploit or because they're just clueless about how much work actually goes into launching a software product or service.
Has anyone else been faced with this situation and how do you handle it? <comment><USER2> Most of them are just clueless. They either have no concept of the work involved or they genuinely believe that their idea is a precious thing on it's own and are doing you a favor by sharing it. They tend to go on remaining clue-deficient as most people have a hard time saying "no".

As to how to deal with it: Take their offer and add to it until you'd be happy to do the work. Tell them you'd be happy to do the work for $X. Don't think of it as being assertive so much as being honest. Remember that you're under no obligation to haggle.

</comment><comment><USER3> I get this at least once a month from my non-tech friends with the next great idea.

I actually took one of my friends up one one of these offers. The problem is that when you are working on it, they have nothing invested and can easily just move onto something else and you are left holding the bag.

I worked on the project for a couple of weeks and he eventually just lost interest and told me he had to concentrate on what was making money for him at the time, which was a PC repair shop.

This was in 2004 and the PC repair shop went out of business went out of business within 6 months.

I don't need an ideas guy..and you probably don't either. I have no shortage of ideas I think could make money. I would only partner up with someone who could provide me with funding, business contacts, or has prior experience in my industry.

The other problem is that once you get the app done, what does the "ideas" guy do? Is their effort really going to be worth a percentage of the company?

</comment><comment><USER4> Just say no or don't respond at all, if they're reaching out via email. You're likely just another name on a list by these "Idea Guys"

Or just give them an honest quote, and stick to your guns. They'll walk.

<comment><USER5> _Or just give them an honest quote, and stick to your guns. They'll walk._

Do not do this if your real answer is "no". Sometimes people will surprise you and take you up on your offer. And if you were really just trying to politely say "um, please kindly get lost but without all kinds of drama that I don't really want", well, you just failed at getting rid of them. Now, attempts to get rid of them get even more complicated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was posted a couple days ago on here. See if you relate: [http://throwawayhn.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/business- cofound...](http://throwawayhn.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/business-cofounders- go-fuck-yourselves/)

</comment><comment><USER7> If you have a Web site, put a flat statement in your FAQ.

</comment><comment><USER8> probably both. Pretty sure most of us have heard this. Tons of folks on google.com at least :)</comment>


Google: Please Don't Kill Video on the Web - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/02/22/google-please-don-t-kill-video-on-the-web.aspx

<comment><USER2> Summary:

 _For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264._

Interesting turn of events! So, everyone supporting patent-free codecs was saying that H.264 is dangerous. H.264 defenders were saying -- "no, you're okay -- we have reasonable licensing terms". Now, Google purchases the codec, gives a free patent grant, and then makes sure H.264 is what it is -- a patent-encumbered standard -- by requesting the allegedly unreasonable license terms, to push a patent-free codec.

Now imagine that Google will [ab]use this whole licensing thing to push for other H.264 patent holders to give a free patent grand similar to WebM.

<comment><USER3> _Now, Google purchases the codec, gives a free patent grant, and then makes sure H.264 is what it is -- a patent-encumbered standard -- by requesting the allegedly unreasonable license terms, to push a patent-free codec._

I think you are confusing the WebM patents, which are patent free, with the Motorola patents, which are certainly not. Also, no one says that h264 wasn't patent encumbered. That's what the MPEG-LA was for, they handle the licensing which cost all of 20 cents. If I'm reading this correct, Motorola had licensed their patents under FRAND terms as part of MPEG-LA. Now they are trying to extract more money from the terms which probably violates all sorts of FRAND agreements.

2012 will be an expensive year. Good for the lawyers though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Uhm... maybe if Microsoft stopped exacting its software patents taxes from Android manufacturers, this pledge would be more valuable.

<comment><USER5> Exactly... news reports claim that MS wants ~12/$500 Android phone. Based upon that, I think Motorola's claims are no more unreasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wait, how are the patents that motorola have not licensed under MPEG-LA and FRAND agreements?

So the new Google is "we don't do evil. We acquire other companies to do the dirty work for us."</comment>


This Stunning Timelapse Space Video Will Astonish You - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/07/21/stunning-space-station-video/

<comment><USER2> Amazing video.

Technical question: is it possible to do low-light time-lapse filming that produces realistic "motion blur"?

At the beginning, there are a lot of shots where lights occupy long lines, as the earth turned during the exposure. Then jump to next frame, and the line has abruptly jumped forwards. Which is what must happen with sequential frames in low-light. So the total effect looks jerky.

Now let's suppose these were 30-second exposures. What if the camera instead took 30 1-second exposures, each of which were severely underexposed. But then software would add frames 1-30 to generate a well-exposed "final frame 1", then frames 2-31 to generate "final frame 2", frames 3-32 to generate "final frame 3", and so on. Each final frame would have full exposure, but the final output would be beautifully smooth, with "natural"-feeling motion blur.

This probably requires on-the-fly computation far beyond any kind of consumer camera. But does anyone know of software that does this? It would be fairly straightforward to write.

<comment><USER3> Yes that's possible. It would not be able to capture as much detail but you would get surpisingly far. The technique is called stacking in astrophotography. There is special software for it. Searching on astrophotography+software will get you some ideas of what is available. Stacking has revolutionized astro imaging and decent amateur pictures with moderate equipment + stacking can outdo professional work from a few decades ago.

<comment><USER2> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


21 Months In: How to Manage a Remote Team - <AUTHOR> https://zapier.com/blog/how-manage-remote-team/ <comment><USER2> _I setup a recurring monthly event with each team member where we both jump on Skype or Google Hangout to chat about three things: what 's one thing I can do better to help him with his job, what's one thing he can do better to improve at his job, and what's one thing the company can do better to make everyone's lives easier._

I was just talking with a friend of mine about this very topic -- it's critically important for any company, remote or otherwise, to have this kind of meaningful, open dialogue periodically, and yet so few companies actually do this. I'd love to see some statistics on what kind of effect a half hour per employee per month does for overall happiness and employee retention.

<comment><USER3> I know that company Y does something similar with their artists as part of their yearly reviews, and their artists don't know of anything they could be doing better. As one of them said to me "If I knew what I could be doing better, I'd be doing it."

Feedback can be useful, but I'd be hesitant around structuring requirements for it.

<comment><USER4> It's less to get and act on a concrete answer to the question, but rather that asking the question unambiguously signals openness and desire to improve. As long as the recipient of the question believes it's being asked earnestly, it doesn't ever need to be directly answered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I suspect this is going to rub people the wrong way but the best way to manage a team is, in my opinion, is to not manage them.

By far the biggest issue for me getting stuff done is managment. I've sat in several companies, at times with not a lot of work, because managers aren't willing to sign off. Motivation dwindles and people leave.

Of course you have to hire people you trust. You need to actually trust them and get out of their way. Let the technical people make the technical decisions, let them do the work, remove obstacles and make sure you're not one of those obstacles.

You will pay the price that a couple of non-contributors will fly under the radar for a bit longer, but between git logs and productivity tools you should still be more than capable of gauging productivity, which should be a binary.

Regarding the article, written communcation is important even if you're in the same office. Listen, it's fine if John tells Steve about foo, but unless it's written down Bob and whoever else wasn't privy to that conversation isn't going to know and you're going to need to repeat yourself with every hire.

If there is a significant difference between what you do with remote folks and what you do with guys in your office, you're probably doing it wrong with the guys in your office and you just haven't figured out how much time you've wasted having to explain everything verbally to new guy Dave.

<comment><USER6> >You will pay the price that a couple of non-contributors will fly under the radar for a bit longer, but between git logs and productivity tools you should still be more than capable of gauging productivity, which should be a binary.

You're missing part of the picture here - time spend helping other employees is time that an employee isn't making commits.

Or, conversely, unless you're looking into the contents of a commit, you don't know the difference between someone making many, regular commits on an easy issue and the person that commits relatively seldom, but contributes code to address harder/meatier problems.

>Regarding the article, written communcation is important even if you're in the same office...you're going to need to repeat yourself with every hire.

Documentation is great, but it's time consuming and much can change in a few weeks time. Write down the stuff worth keeping around for months, and let go of the rest -- giving a new hire volumes of text regarding irrelevant conversations/processes is a sure way to increase spin-up time.

<comment><USER5> > You're missing part of the picture here - time spend helping other employees > is time that an employee isn't making commits.

Actually I do get that, that's why I said its binary. Don't compare Bob, Steve and John. Look at them individually and see if they're contributing. Set a minimum standard and stop caring about squeezing every little bit out of them. You might run into a problem if all you ever do is mentor, but then your manager should be aware of that and view you in that context.

> Or, conversely, unless you're looking into the contents of a commit, you > don't know the difference between someone making many, regular commits on an > easy issue and the person that commits relatively seldom, but contributes > code to address harder/meatier problems.

Following my advice doesn't preclude you from looking at the context of the commits, my point was leave the fucking team members alone unless you have a good reason. Bobs not doing a lot of projects, look at what he actually does and validate him. Steven has almost low commits? Look at it in the context of the problem he's working on and judge him based on that. Only step in when theres a real need, otherwise leave them alone, you'll just make things worse.

> Documentation is great, but it's time consuming and much can change in a few > weeks time. Write down the stuff worth keeping around for months, and let go > of the rest -- giving a new hire volumes of text regarding irrelevant > conversations/processes is a sure way to increase spin-up time.

No, you should give a new hire a piece of A4 that tells him how to get up and running. You need a network login? It should tell him where to go. Need to do something to project? Get it from git, vagrant up. Expected to be on IRC? Heres the creds. Need more info? Heres the Wiki.

In the wiki, you only need to give specific minimal information such as specific repo the project is in, steps to push your changes, etc. Anything non-standard as your hires should know how to do their job or to google it and figure out. I never said anything about giving them irrelevant conversations or processes, I said the info needed to be a remote worker is exactly the same as one in the office and it's pretty much always the same a) Where do I find this shit? b) what does it use? c) Any gotchas? d) Ok fixed, how do I make my changes live?

The only exception is if you're training juniors, they might need you to actually talk to them about work now and again, everyone else should get on with it from the above.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We too are a remote team at ninjaas.com.

I admire startups which open-source their - workflows, tools, processes and philosophies. They must be having really-really-big heart! :)

In our case, we are currently just Ramen Profitable. All our team members are remote, in the same time-zone.

Many small startups don't care much to invest in bringing Greater workflows, Processes and tools.

I keep telling to my co-founder - the hardest part in company building is setting up Processes, tools and workflows -- the Nurturing phase. It takes lots of gut, time and patience to explore and fix workflows, tools.

From my experience so far -

\+ Any remote work sits on top of love for the work. I must love the job. Job satisfaction.

\+ There must be a sense of ownership, reward and instant gratification. All other things like responsibility, Trust, faith comes on top of that.

\+ Remote teams need highest levels of Communication clarity, Protocols and aligning with the Product vision. Communication tools are important. We use Google+ Private communities.

So, what if you are an idea-Stage/early-stage? If its an Idea and still not a concrete product? Then remote teams can't collaborate easily and brainstorm. We've found it very hard.

Also for Remote teams - Everyone should be doing support, sales, marketing, pitching, writing cool articles and almost full-stack work. Overall a Generalist attitude. This brings more clarity, responsibility and leadership overtime.

Finally as you said - The biggest wins aren't usually found in any blog posts or comments like mine, but in what you discover on your own, over time.

So keep exploring and don't stop! :)

<comment><USER8> > Also for Remote teams - Everyone should be doing support, sales, marketing, > pitching, writing cool articles and almost full-stack work. Overall a > Generalist attitude. This brings more clarity, responsibility and leadership > overtime.

See my other post on here to see that I disagree with this. This is deeply unprofessional. Perhaps your programmers aren't professionals, so then it might make some sense. But then it's more a shop of amateurs than a really professional organisation.

Would you expect a physician to drive the ambulance, triage the emergency room, treat the patients and keep the hospital accounts balanced to bring 'clarity, responsibility and leadership'?

How about expecting a lawyer to write contracts, appear in court, manage the computer systems, man the front desk, keep the filing cabinet ordered and handle the invoicing and billing, answer the phones and including chasing clients who are late paying?

As a software professional I would certainly not work for you. Why would you make me do sales, support, marketing, pitching and writing articles? I'm not a sales person or a tech support person. I didn't study marketing nor creative writing. I develop software. And I'm damn good at it. Asking me to do these other things would be a waste of my time and of your money. If you hired me and asked me to do these things I'd say no. If you forced me to, I'd respectfully quit. And then go get a job developing software with a team of professionals, not a bunch of amateurs.

<comment><USER7> Startup != company.

Have you worked in a startup environment?

In any early stage startup, you need to be ready to roll out your sleeves and ready to do anything awesome in the interest of your team.

This might be getting new leads, contracts, deals or whatever. This is how all great companies started.

This should be the attitude.

And please don't say - I'll only do this and not that. I will never hire you or work alongside such minds.

Its the role of founders and early team to nurture the project and processes.

Startups are very low on budget and can't spend $$ for sales or MBA heroes. Today developers can write a great blog article and attract customers in your niche.

Note: We are all full-stack developers and completely bootstrapped. We have failed and learnt things the hard way so far. Once things are setup we have plans to invest/hire dedicated staff. We believe in training and making them align with our vision.

I think you might have never worked in a startup, so you don't get the idea and feel of it. :)

<comment><USER8> I actually started a startup once, when I was younger. The legal structure was a company. What legal structure is yours, if not a company? A partnership? Or even worse, it has no legal structure? Just a sweat equity and a promise?

After two years we were not profitable and wound up the company. I made a lot of mistakes and learnt a lot about writing _maintainable_ software. We hacked shit together quickly and out the door, and we paid the price in the medium term.

At least our feelings are mutual. You would never hire me and there's no way I'd ever work for you. So it's all good!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Lack of trust and an abundance of paranoia are big obstacles lurking beneath the surface with remote work. Experience leads me to believe most 'managers' or founders aren't able to handle it. However, when you have a good one that gives you the space and trust you need to get things done. It's marvelous.

<comment><USER10> That makes sense from my experience. When looking for front-end jobs it seems like there are very few remote positions available. If there is a position available, they usually fall into two different categories. One, the position is for a senior level front-end wizard or the position is remote but only to the extent of the city limits. For example, "remote but must live in San Francisco".

<comment><USER11> I don't get that. Is there an actual reason why employers care about where you live when you work remotely? Beyond, I suppose, time zone concerns?

<comment><USER9> I'm sure it's a matter of being able to meet in person without the need for pricey flights, having the ability to come in with some sort of frequency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe I use these tools differently than Zapier does, but using Trello AND Github issues AND iDoneThis seems a bit redundant. There's nothing worse than keeping up with different tools to do basically the same thing.

<comment><USER13> Ah, we find the complete opposite.

One serendipitous thing we've discovered while using and working on Zapier is that the tool itself allows you to use whatever _your_ best in class application is for the task at hand, regardless of what else you'll need to shoehorn into it. Zapier can help you connect up the different tools that are the best at what they do.

Multiple tools also help us silo stuff, for example:

        * Trello covers product roadmap.
        * Github covers bugs.
        * iDoneThis covers everything else we're working on.

Just like you might use a particular database for its strengths (Cassandra for write heavy loads, Redis for crazy fast in memeory, Mongo for speedy development), you should use various SaaS tools for their strengths.

<comment><USER14> We abandoned Github for bugs and only use Trello. The issue is that bugs need to prioritized alongside other work rather than done separately. Bug is a very broad term covering everything from a bona fide clear cut bug to 99.3% of some feature has been implemented but there is that missing .7%. Also Github doesn't support a 'priority' field for issues making them useless with more than a trivial number of issues.

The other problem is that Github doesn't allow multiple repositories per project (Google Code does). That means each project has its own bug tracker and wiki (we also gave up on them) and has exactly one source repo. If your final product experience is an aggregate of multiple different projects (eg an android client, a web server, a data backend) then bugs can easily be reported against a project when the fix is in a different one. Having to copy/move/reference issues across projects is far too much busy work.

The final issue was that I talked to Zapier folk and bidirectional syncing wasn't supported (and doesn't appear to be today). For example if it supported bidirectional sync between a Trello card and a Github issue then it might be manageable. (By bidirectional syncing I mean that changes made on either side show up on the other one automatically and there is no infinite loop.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Everyone does support

I once worked at a company who did this. It was terrible on the developers. It destroyed productivity. It destroyed flow. And it was really just a way to plaster over not having clearly defined software goals and processes. If you develop software in a _professional_ manner, you can really do amazing things for the customer without making your 6 figure salaried senior programmers answer phones and tell people to try rebooting their windows machine.

The developer doesn't need to 'hear the voice of the customer' if the customers needs are being accurately transformed into proper specifications and plans by competent technical leads. The developer will meet the needs of the customer through creating excellent, testable, modular and clean code that excels at meeting the specifications.

</comment><comment><USER15> Another bit that is really important I find as a remote worker: feedback. While it's nice that you can get long, uninterrupted stretches of work it becomes a problem when you can't get a snappy answer to a simple question because everyone has their head down and is ignoring their email, IMs, etc.

You have to be more up-front with your availability and response times. One thing that irks me working on remote teams is the person who leaves their online status as "available," all of the time. It can be infuriating when you send someone a message and not get a reply for hours. I find you have to manage your statuses a little more carefully. However the payoff is nice because you can't always mediate conversations like that in a co-location setup.

<comment><USER16> Sqwiggle from the article sounds like it would make it more obvious when everyone is working.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Aside from Sqwiggle, which I hadn't heard of but hate on sight, this sounds remarkably similar to my team's workflow. I'm not certain whether idonethis would offer enough benefit to be worthwhile compared to simple daily emails to a team mailing list, filtered into a label (or folder for non-gmail folks) though.

Actually, we use Hangouts a bit differently too. We don't really have a concept of 'at work' vs 'not at work'. When I'm working, I am, by definition, busy. It's often more convenient for me to receive a chat when I'm not working - watching TV or whatever. Plus, I have Hangouts on my phone, so I'm very rarely unreachable, unless I'm sleeping. The distinction therefore shifts from at work/not at work to available/busy. If I'm available I'll answer a chat immediately; if I'm busy I won't, unless it's particularly important. Also, each member of our team works whatever hours are most convenient for them, which often don't overlap much, so it's beneficial that we're available when necessary to answer quick questions even when we're not in work mode. (Not that we need to often, since asynchronous methods of communication usually tend to do the trick.)

It's similar to one of the many objections I had to Sqwiggle: this idea that since I'm sitting at my desk, it's therefore a good time to contact me. Often the exact opposite is true: [http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Using Sqwiggle sounds a little too Big Brother for my liking.

<comment><USER19> I feel like it conflicts with the advice to trust your employees, too. Like, trust them, but have them on camera at all times.

<comment><USER18> Exactly. It's one thing to jump on Google Hangouts or Skype on a whim, but it's entirely different to ask employees to be monitored like animals at their desks. I'm envisioning management questioning why an employee is away from their desk if they went to the bathroom or to get something from the kitchen. It would seem to cast more doubt than assurance in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone have a recommendation for a better tool than LastPass? I use LastPass every day, and it's awful.

It looks like meldium is headed in the right direction but the last time I tried it, it was still too early.

<comment><USER21> I hadn't heard of Lastpass Enterprise or Meldium before.

At previous companies I've used Passpack ([http://www.passpack.com/en/home/](http://www.passpack.com/en/home/)) but didn't really like it. The sharing model is a real pain and doesn't scale. Team members create passwords in their individual accounts, then transfer ownership to a company account. Now the person who administers the company account gets an email, logs in, accepts the transfer, and shares the password to the appropriate team members.

Now that I'm in a simpler environment where veryone has access to all the passwords, I just use pass ([http://zx2c4.com/projects/password- store/](http://zx2c4.com/projects/password-store/)) and a central git repository.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wanted to add a couple of items:

* Would rather always over communicate than under (respecting the 'maker schedule', of course)

* Make sure you are always aware of what your team mates are working on - not because you don't trust them, but so you know they are always spending time on higher priority things. A daily scrum - even over a skype call or text based chat can help set clear priorities. Should be part of process for any remote team so its not at end of day that you now time was wasted.

</comment><comment><USER23> I noted the OP's blog has a job post for a content manager that states Anywhere,USA. Why limit yourself to USA? I figure if it is remote it should be remote anywhere.

<comment><USER24> HR and legal compliance is much easier when dealing with domestic vs. international employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> the first part of that article is everything, really. if you get that right, they/we will find the right tools.

and i say this as a remote worker who just ended up going for a walk in the rain to calm down; returned to an email saying "sorry for the poor management"; and would quite happily give the silly idiot a hug if he were here...

</comment><comment><USER26> communicate communicate communicate

I've worked in several jobs with remote teams (as the team and managing the team) and the difference between the ones that worked like clockwork and the ones that didn't almost inevitably came down to communication.

The amount of time and energy sorting out problems because of a lack of communication will absolutely dwarf the amount of time you should have been communicating.

\- Have at least 1 weekly roundup, guaranteed, no exceptions. Even if it's just for everybody to get together and say they have nothing to report, that is even in and of itself a communication. Some places did daily end of the days, some did Mon & Friday mornings, it doesn't matter. Do it.

\- Use more efficient communication proxies when possible: trello, jira, salesforce, whatever. Enforce it with an iron fist. Don't let people get away with not using the tools, they're easy to use and if you get in the habit, saves hours upon hours of time. I love love love Trello for this.

\- Have constant ad hoc communications. IM, phone, email. Schedule times so you don't interrupt somebody's work day. Missing a scheduled time should be a shocking breach of protocol.

\- Please try not to use speakerphone or conference room speaker phone, it makes the meeting unpleasant on the other end and much harder to undertand.

\- Google docs, really great for drafting up things and early collaboration. Switch to Office for the final work.

\- if you can afford it, have as many face-to-face meetings as possible, be it once a week, or once a quarter, or once a year. Try and make the effort. I've found that learning people in-person helps smooth over digital communications.

\- document document document - everything. Have a centralized and constantly organized document repository. People leave, sometimes without doing a good handoff. Not having good documentation will kill a company for months or years.

I agree with most everything else here: especially "5\. Hire people who are ok without a social workplace."

Amazingly, most people don't actually realize what it means to work alone every day, all day. I've had a couple people go a bit loony and flake out after a few months on their own. The environment was discussed, and they felt confident about it, but simply couldn't handle the reality of it. If this is a requirement, prepare for issues no matter what. Try and hire people with a track record for this kind of work.

One guy ended up hitting bottle pretty hard (bars can be chatty places), his wife filed for divorce, and he simply stopped showing up to work. Working remotely it took a couple of weeks of no shows on the weekly all together to figure it out. He ended up quitting and moving to the desert to sort his life out. Working alone simply shattered him.

And finally, "4\. Hire people who can write"

You wouldn't believe how many emails I've received from certain remote workers that are utterly indecipherable. You think most native speakers of a language with some college in them can write an intelligible email. It turns out many can't. And you waste lots of time clarifying, making phone calls, etc. And the worst case is you go off on the wrong direction.

</comment><comment><USER27> I prefer to work remote for ages, but I dislike the choices of tools. Publishing valuable business critical documentation into the cloud looks to me to like typical US stupidity, I prefer to host them myself.

I host my own teamspeak, my own upload file server, my own repository, my own wiki, my own ...

I do not need PRISM scans. We had two burglars in 2010 who did not steal anything, but tried to reboot systems to install malware. Just raise the bar for industry spionage, do not make it to easy for them.

In the list of tools Sqwiggle would be a no go for me. I would walk out of the virtual hiring chat, if someone tells me that he wants to watch me with a webcam, while i'm sitting here in underpants. Hey - go to chatroulet if you want that.</comment>


Hacker News Highlights - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2015/12/hacker-news-highlights-2/ <comment><USER2> The content is good. It's strange how corporate the about page sounds, but that probably doesn't matter.

Maybe a whoishiring-type weekly submission might be a better format? "Here's some interesting stuff you may not have seen."</comment>


Age and Happiness: The U-bend of Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/17722567

<comment><AUTHOR> A hypothesis: Happiness and success are inversely correlated, because as people become more successful, their expectations of _future_ success rise faster than the actual reality does. And, as James Hong (HotOrNot.com) famously pointed out, "happiness = reality - expectations". Middle-aged people are the least happy because they are the most outwardly successful, while children and old people are the most happy because (on a recent basis) they are the least outwardly successful.

A question: given all the positives to happiness that the article mentions - better health, higher productivity, etc. - how can we be happier _before_ we get old? It'd suck to have to wait until I'm 70 and my body is falling apart before I'm happy.</comment>


53% of youth would give up sense of smell to stay connected - <AUTHOR> http://www.bizreport.com/2011/05/53-of-youngsters-would-give-up-sense-of-smell-to-stay-connec.html

<comment><USER2> This says more about the relative inutility of human olfaction than the unique value of whatever poorly specified "technology" the survey asked about.</comment>