So I refused a white board technical test and was asked to leave - <AUTHOR> http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/so-i-refused-a-white-board-technical-test-and-was-asked-to-leave.1717025/ <comment><USER2> And you were expecting what, exactly?

I've had similar using live coding tests, barely minutes in and the candidate is clearly not coding what was specified. Asked why, they offer criticism of the interview process and an explanation of why their thing (usually a game or some graphical doohickey) is better.

This is an instant fail. These tests are as much about interaction and personality as they are technical skill. Which is why your GitHub profile is not relevant until afterwards.

You can have a profile full of great looking code, but if you're truculent, uncooperative and insist on being the smartest asshole in the room, you will not be finding work with my team today.

Soft skills, people.

<comment><USER3> Apparently, he was expecting a constructive dialogue which was never planned to take place.

When a professional comes in, he expects to be treated like one. Most people learned to solve basic coding problems when they were at the university like 15 or 20 years ago. Today, 20 years later you should be discussing other things. Otherwise, you're basically starting a dialogue implying the guy slacked off for 20 years inviting him to prove otherwise. It's just no way for two grown-up professionals to approach things.

On a side note, try this: make a appointment with a highly reputable dentist (like weeks or months in advance) then go and try asking him some basic questions implying he might not know his stuff. You'll be shown the door in about two minutes, and possibly you'll get a lifetime ban in that establishment.

Why should software developers accept to be treated differently? And yes, there are lots of incompetent dentists and doctors of all kinds. Why do they have more respect for themselves than software specialists?

<comment><USER4> > When a professional comes in, he expects to be treated like one

How do I know if the person I'm talking to is one of your "professionals," without asking these questions? I need to weed out the pretend professionals.

<comment> white-flame You address them as professionals, and if they're lost as to what you're talking about, they're not professionals.

People can't talk the talk about specifics of industry experience if they haven't walked the walk, and that will become obvious in normal discourse around the matters of job role itself and their related experiences. You can be inquisitive, but starting off with CS101 quizzes is just condescending and wildly irrelevant to the actual position.

<comment><USER4> I don't think so. Hiring is vulnerable to "behavioral" factors: cognitive biases etc. I'm very fearful of being overconfident, trusting hunches etc. I need hard data.

When I'm being interviewed, I respect the interviewer for demanding hard data, instead of just checking who talks the talk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It was the right thing to do, but it was done with the bad timing.

This personal preference should have been communicated right after the first contact and before going on the first date, polite and firmly. That way nobody's time would have been wasted.

It's something I would do these days, given the current industry obsession with these weird rituals. A simple pragmatic and a [constructive] dialog about the needs of the company, my skills and whether there is a potential mutual interest - yes, white board coding, puzzle questions, technical interviews and take home tests - no. Whoever is not okay with this arrangement may move along.

All good jobs that I had were offered without technical tests and they came with nice and smart people. Every time there was some technical grilling involved, the people were arrogant and condescending, and I wouldn't have wanted to work with them anyway.

And anyway, this form of hiring protocol mostly seems to be practiced in the US job market, as well as by those countries trying to closely mimic their US counterparts. I've noticed that phenomenon in Eastern Europeans too. The Western European companies have massively different hiring practices.

For one thing the author is right. These broken hiring techniques force people to leave the mundane job market as quickly as possible, switching to looking for work through other channels. Perhaps this situation contributes to the visible lack of talent that some are observing. Apparently, the talent prefers a more personal and a more civilized approach that the generic job market is not offering.

<comment><USER5> The West EU market is indeed very different; reading hiring practice in the US on HN it mostly seems like abuse. Probably it is not _that_ bad in reality but I am glad I never had and will never have to do these kind of things. Nor will I put people I hire through this. I guess it is the mentality here; might have said the opposite if I was from the US.

<comment><USER6> What's it like in the west EU?

<comment><USER3> Basically, the interview is all about getting to know a person. You discuss your experiences, your interests, your values. You get to know the people interviewing you, they get an image of you. The company tells you about what they do, then asks you to tell something about yourself. Then you move on to discuss the position, their needs and their objectives and eventually you both develop an idea if there is a good match (for the both sides). Through this not only do they learn about your professional level, but they also form an image of your soft skills and your presentation abilities.

Essentially, it's very important for them to find a nice colleague that will naturally integrate in the collective. Someone who can do the work, but also talk, communicate well and overall be a well-rounded person. The technical side of things is an additional criteria, but not the basis for a decision. You often get to hear the idea that "learning on the job" is the way they do things. Nobody has an idea to dismiss you because you don't remember some obscure sorting algorithm from 20 years ago.

At least I have not run in a single case when the interview was being run by people or the Western European origin and I got to be grilled on technical matters. The story was all different when among the Western Europeans there were the Eastern ones present at the table who were mainly asking questions. In that case all that you get asked is the minutiae of the specific technologies they use, and often the interview time is completely wasted as you don't get the chance to learn about the company, so you return home with as little information about them as you had before going to the interview.

After a while you get a clear picture of where everyone fits in the food chain. Western Europeans run a business, see the big picture and care about practical things. Eastern Europeans are grunt workers that are [happily] stuck in their technical silos.

Not meaning to offend anyone originating from Easter European countries and who do not fall under this description, but it's been my consistent experience and my individual observation that I've made while interviewing for positions in Western Europe (mostly in Germany) and also from interacting with my colleagues (of varying origins). There was always a clear separation of concerns to be felt.

<comment><USER3> Just to clarify. There are many smart and intelligent people among the Eastern Europeans who've moved beyond that level. It's just I've never encountered that type at the interviewing table. Those that I've seen were mostly interested in scratching their ego, proving their smartness to their bosses and putting down the candidate in public. Naturally, they were making a terrible impression of the company and I wouldn't have accepted to work there anyway (unless after a letter from the CEO stating they have all been removed from the company).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been interviewing and interviewed for years. If you want to test someones coding ability, give them a computer, give them a problem and ask them to solve it in their favorite language.

The time during an in-person interview should not, I repeat, should not be wasted on solving a single problem on a whiteboard. Having someone whiteboard a design or system, etc., sure. But having them do code on a whiteboard is idiotic since no-one actually works like that (well not since Lisp was invented).

When I interview people, I ask them about their experience, and how they solved difficult situations they faced. I find out a lot more this way about their abilities to lead projects; if you do it effectively you can quickly determine where people are exaggerating their team leadership skills, or the amount of design they were personally responsible for on a project. Read about behavioral interviews for good material on how to properly interview in this style.

Going through this process also lets you know if you actually want to work with the person. Which, IMO is more important than hiring the greatest programmer in the world, if that person is also a narcissistic, egotistical maniac (and yes, all us programmers fit that description, but you know what I'm getting at).

After all that, you have their test, their github account, references (OMG, you can call people they know or ask on LinkedIn, what?). That should be sufficient in telling you about their coding ability, and far greater than a 45-60 minute white boarding session in which all you found out is if they can properly do quick-sort (where do I pivot again?).

I agree that this guy probably could have handled this particular situation better, but I also think it's a stupid waste of time on the interviewers part to ask questions that don't get at the heart of someones experience.

<comment><USER8> References? Isn't it pretty taboo to give out _bad_ references? How can you then trust the good references?

<comment><USER3> In Germany (and possibly in certain other countries) there is a special language people use in written references to issue a positive reference (others aren't permitted) yet include certain information "between the lines". There are books on how to write these things and how to detect them.

<comment><USER7> Same in the US. Basically you can either give someone a glowing review, or you can say, "yes, <person> worked here for <X amount of time>".

What you can't do is anything that hinders a person from getting a job, but it doesn't mean you need to lie and say they were great.

<comment><USER3> Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Commercial Software development is for a large part about communication with fellow humans, not just about typing into a terminal. A whiteboard is just another communication tool, quite often used by development teams.

<comment><USER10> Agreed , but development teams already have a understanding of each and every team member's skill set. You pretty much go into whiteboard interviews without knowing the people all that well.

<comment><USER11> If you're in a small company, possibly. In a large organisation, I fairly regularly find myself having to explain technical stuff to people I've never met before. Some are non-technical, some are very technical. Some are external suppliers, or people working in one of our many overseas divisions.

Admittedly, my job may not be typical of what the average dev has to do. But if that's the kind of role that this company was looking for, then asking someone to talk through something on a whiteboard doesn't seem too unreasonable.

I don't know the company, but I'm guessing that they aren't going to be that bothered that you can't remember the exact syntax of a particular function without checking it on Google. What I assume they're looking for is someone who can clearly communicate their thought process.

<comment><USER10> Sorry, meant to clarify that with only small focused teams that could be working a specific feature etc. Yes if the job was for a more responsible role like the one you describe, I would hope they would give the applicant a while board and more to show his/her skills.

I can disagree that for a just a technical interview that a while board isn't the best tool to bring out people's collaboration skills.

I don't know what the whiteboard should be replaced with, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The whole interviewer-interviewee dynamic is so messed up in technical hiring these days.

Recently I've been thinking about asking the candidate to ask me to whiteboard something. I actually think that might produce a more interesting conversation and a more meaningful assessment of fit from both sides.

<comment><USER13> Throw in a couple of gotchas and no-nos and see how the subject responds!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> They have a quantity of engineers they're trying to evaluate quickly. If you refuse why would they bother wasting their time? Chances are that you're not _the_ stand-out candidate of the group so why not just pass over you and find one that fits within the checklist of tasks your boss told you to do to evaluate a new hire?

There's a time and place to take your stand. You need to work that out or you'll shoot yourself in the foot.

</comment><comment><USER15> White board tests are pretty useless, but the applicant's behaviour was unprofessional, to say the least.

I would have ended the interview right there, as well.

<comment><USER16> It's unprofessional to make an adult with potentially years of experience do a nonsensical, high-pressure test in front of an interviewer like a monkey. Whiteboard interviews are humiliating even if you pass.

Any company that does whiteboard interviews for coders should also have incoming salespeople sell hotdogs in front of the building as a test. Incoming managers can use Barbie dolls to demonstrate how to run a team. Fair is fair.

<comment><USER17> This is like getting your knickers in a twist over being asked to make a coffee when interviewing to be a barista. "But I have years of experience, why should I just make you a coffee right now in front of you like a trained monkey?"

The reason that people do fizz-buzz style tests in interviews isn't to insult you with easy questions. It's because far too many "professionals with years of experience" are incapable of solving the simplest problems. These people will cost your company hundreds of thousands of dollars in combined expenses and opportunity cost, if you let them.

It's possible to implement it poorly, sure, but the principle is sound.

<comment><USER18> A barista would be making coffees as part of their job. Not sure how many programmers code on whiteboards in stressful situations on a daily basis.

<comment><USER17> Maybe not often white boards specifically (although I've done that too) but does no-one else do pair programming? Code reviews? Emergency group debug sessions to fix a blocking bug? There are many situations which absolutely do require you to be able to perform on the spot and under pressure.

<comment><USER18> I have done all of those, but by that time I was aquatinted with the people I work with. During an interview you're stressed by strangers and the interview itself.

For instance, I interviewed people who froze up simply by being on an interview, putting them in front of a whiteboard would have been torture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Modern interviewing is about whether a candidate brings the right skills and whether s/he'd fit in. It's not about finding the best robot, it's about finding a colleague your both be able to work and have fun with. The author may or may not have had the technical skills but being a rebel in the interview process does never bode well for your ability to fit into the work environment.

<comment><USER18> You can actually, you know, talk to the candidate and find out if they fit. Wanting them to perform in front of a whiteboard is completely different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> A second tale from the same forum submitter:

 _> Had another interview on Skype with another company. Was grilled verbally without actual coding test._

 _> No way those verbal answers can be delivered unless you have experience, so I basically aced the verbal technical test on Skype. But I don't think I'll get the job anyway because the interviewers all seem like young punks who may not think I would fit their hip/young group._

There is a reason Rosa Parks and not Claudette Colvin [1] was used as the front figure of the bus segregation lawsuit.

Although there is an argument about the merits of whiteboard testing his (apparent) behavior and overall attitude could have contributed as much as his refusal to take the test.

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

<comment><USER21> tsk tsk tsk, somebody didn't read the whole thread. I highlighted the juicy bits.

      I was told the hiring manager was very keen to make me an offer but I have to travel about 4 to 5 hours to their office for onsite final interview.

      Yes, it's the team of young punks who interviewed me.

      This was a recruiter involved exercise where I was contacted. Did not apply for this position.

And now the whole post:

      Just an update. There's another Skype interview I had that was successful and I was asked to attend a final interview. I was told the hiring manager was very keen to make me an offer but I have to travel about 4 to 5 hours to their office for onsite final interview. I suppose this could involve white board testing or whatever. They want the interview/meeting this week/thursday, a bit of a rush. I am not so keen on travelling this week, and I expected them not to offer me anything at all in the first place. Yes, it's the team of young punks who interviewed me. I am way too jaded to make a 4 to 5 hours trip just to attend a final whiteboard test. But even then I have to make a move if I do accept this offer. This was a recruiter involved exercise where I was contacted. Did not apply for this position. I asked to confirm the interview agenda, and all the recruiter said was to discuss the offer. The last thing I want is to be bamboozled and surprised by a whiteboard test and wasted my trip there. Even then I am already not too keen on this job due to the need to make a big move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I applaud you! Whiteboarding (sounds like waterboarding) is an archaic practice and should be discontinued. A new hiring and vetting method needs to be invented. I also don't agree with these "coding puzzle" websites where you do silly questions to show your skills and "score respect". All technical interviews today are very confrontational by nature. Both parties start off on the wrong foot. There needs to be some sort of hybrid. I like to make the analogy to driver's licenses. There should be something like developer licenses that the industry defines and agrees upon. If you have a developer license for Android, for example, then companies should know that they can hire you for an Android project. Its silly for someone like me to go to every single company that wants to talk and jump through the same hoops every time to demonstrate competency. The conversation that we have in 30-40 minutes is given more weight than my entire track record over several years, which is just absurd. Each company also has to divert their energy from their core work to develop their own hiring practices. The same problem is being solved over and over by each company which is just a total waste of time. It is not fun for either side.

</comment><comment><USER23> Site got hugged to death. Google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c1QjJhx...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c1QjJhx3DVYJ:www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php%3Fthreads/so- i-refused-a-white-board-technical-test-and-was-asked-to-leave.1717025/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I think I wouldn't mind doing some whiteboard pseudo-coding, to brainstorm on an algorithm for instance. To design an algorithm or sketch an architecture, I don't need Internet access.

Of course I wouldn't accept any critic on syntactic mistakes or even coding style, but I could explain out loud how I construct the initial steps of a program.

I would also let explicit comments like "//google a solution for that" or "//find a library that does this"

<comment><USER25> Bang on. This is totally great just if the companies doing the white boarding interviews accept this kind of interactions. Most of them don't, and that is what white board interview enthusiasts are missing to consider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I see a lot of different opinions in this comments and I believe that there is truth in both sides of the situation. Whiteboard is pretty much useless to determinate the technical skills of the person but it can be useful as to understanding how a person uses their communication/critical thinking skills . I do not think that the problem is the whiteboard per se but rather the use that the employers makes of situation. If the interviewer is aware of what using a whiteboard is good/bad for than the outcome can be good even if the whiteboard problem is not fully solved. The issue with the ordeal arises when people take the whiteboard approach at face value. "This is a problem, solve it." and take the end result as a direct example of the applicant's skills. I think that a good interviewer should be able to communicate what is expected out of a whiteboard test and make the candidate at ease. Obviously interviews with this approach are seemingly rather rare because people that conduct the interview often don't have the skills or the experience to conduct thought out interviews and take problems without maybe thinking of how they should evaluate the result of a test.

</comment><comment><USER27> > I was also asked to do some weird personality test that is over 3 pages and > I have no clue the format/questions being asked. I declined those as well.

Uncooperative and argumentative. I'd _really_ want someone like this on my team...

<comment><USER28> Gets to the root of a problem quickly and points out the flaws.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I refused a whiteboard hazing a few months ago. It was more of a logistics matter where they scheduled me really late (around 7PM) and told me it was just an "introduction" interview.

It was not a good match and I don't regret it at all.

Edit: This was for an internship and they either were not honest in their phone call or there was some "implicit" things that I didn't get.

</comment><comment><USER30> This seems like 1) a communication problem and 2) an attitude problem, from the OP, more than anything else.

It seems like the OP is insistent on his own way of being evaluated, but hasn't informed these interviewers or recruiters ahead of time, or even try to discuss it (hence a communication problem):

> I just packed up and left. Didn't even bother to further explain why I > refuse the whiteboard interview or tell them why their process is flawed.

Additionally, the OP seems to have an egotistic and judgmental temperament (hence an attitude problem):

> No way those verbal answers can be delivered unless you have experience, so > I basically aced the verbal technical test on Skype.

> ... the interviewers all seem like young punks who may not think I would fit > their hip/young group.

Given the above, I think it's unfair to use this particular anecdote fuel against the tech recruitment system (although I agree it is flawed), because those companies might have complied with OP's desires had he communicated them or handled the situation with a better attitude.

</comment><comment><USER31> Okay, so a whiteboard interview is definitely flawed, and we all know it.

However, I would like to point out 2 things:

1\. You should have known it was going to be a whiteboard WELL in advance of the actual interview. You could have asked the recruiter how you'd be evaluated. In the actual interview is NOT the place to refuse a whiteboard. You should have talked to the recruiter and told him/her that you wouldn't do a whiteboard evaluation. Instead you chose to waste everyone's time. So, you're kind of a dick for that.

2\. "because the interviewers all seem like young punks" \- yeah maybe the issue is your attitude. Just sayin. Again, you sound like you're kind of a dick.

</comment><comment><USER32> Pro-tip: If a candidate throws a tantrum during an interview when asked to whiteboard a problem, don't hire them.

<comment><USER33> Double pro-tip, if asked stupid questions, or better yet, they yell at you and trow anything at you, do not walk, run away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I really really don't understand why people get so offended regarding whiteboard coding interviews. I understand not liking them, and even disagreeing with them, but walking out of a job interview because they ask you to solve a little puzzle doesn't make sense to me.

When you apply for a retail job, they'll ask you a question such as "how would you handle X situation," and you're expected to come up with a plan on the spot. In reality, you'll probably have a manager who will tell you what to do, or you'll at least have a team to discuss it with, but asking questions like this tells you something about a candidate.

The same thing with writing whiteboard code- it tells you something about the candidate. At the bottom line, it tells you whether the candidate can reason and think about code. It also demonstrates how the candidate can communicate their thoughts and questions with others on their team. Honestly I'd rather these skills be tested while I'm writing code, rather them asking some questions like "tell us about a bug you encountered and how you fixed it." I guess it also shows if the candidate has an ego too big to be willing to be interviewed for an hour.

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't get the whiteboard hate. The whiteboard is no different from typing, except it's slower. The trend towards live coding is just kind of gimmicky. You have spend your time talking about the approach and the algorithm before you start writing anyway. If you're judging a whiteboard interview on syntax[0] then you're doing them wrong. It's all about the back and forth. The code is almost an afterthought.

Every live coding interview inevitably comes to a crashing halt when the interviewer wants you to actually run the code, because then it's 10 minutes of chasing syntax errors. (Oh missed a semicolon. Didn't close a string. Oh it's not add()? Must be put(). Oh that wasn't imported. Oh that was misspelled. blah. blah. blah.) Followed by another 10 minutes of sticking in print statements to debug the damn thing because you can't write a unit test, or have a debugger.

It's an equally bullshit setup. No one writes production code on a whiteboard, and no one writes production code with some dude staring over your shoulder commenting every other line about a comma or an indent style or some other trivial thing. Even pair programming isn't supposed to be that, and that's assuming you believe pair programming is useful, which is debatable.[1]

[0] I one time had an interview where the guy actually said, "Isn't it .size() and not .length()?" My response was, "Whatever." [1] I actually don't have an opinion assuming "the navigator" is actually thinking strategically instead of saying bullshit like, "'instead' is spelled with an e-a not an a-e." Well, no shit. That's why it got flagged in the editor.

<comment><USER36> There are 3 main problems with the whiteboard tech interview. 1\. It's not actually correlated to job performance. Google (and others) have done tons of studies on this, and the summary was basically, "Yeah, it's complete bs." 2\. It is meant to show how a candidate would solve a problem, but it forces the candidate to follow a particular problem-solving path. Who in their right mind, when being first introduced to a new problem, cuts off all access to Google and other resources and tries to derive a solution from first principles?! Recent grads maybe, but not anyone who's been doing this for some time. It's not a good measure of how a candidate solves a problem if that's not the candidate's typical way of solving a problem. It's like to trying to see how good someone can ride a bike by handing them a unicycle. 3\. We're the only industry that doesn't recognize success. At what point should the technical interviews cease? 5 years in? 10? Senior Engineer? Director? CTO? Can we really not tell if someone knows their stuff by just asking them about what's on their resume or by giving them a take-home project to submit?

The fundamental problem is trying to evaluate coding skill in an interview environment. The ability to regurgitate from Cracking the Coding Interview says nothing about whether a candidate can write well-documented, well-tested, maintainable code. It fails even more at determining whether a candidate knows when to write their own stuff vs when to use a library. It fails to determine how well a candidate can learn. All of those things are far more important skills to have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> when i've interviewed people I generally get them to answer a question on the whiteboard.

and... i couldn't care less what they write. What I do care about is how they go about the task. how do they approach the problem? do they plan or do they try first and fix it up? Giving the person a whiteboard marker and them being able to turn away from you helps overcome stage-fright.

exact memorization of an algorithm for an interview is worthless in my eyes.

</comment><comment><USER38> To me the problem with recruitment process in this industry is that you're experience and background are totally irrelevant and you are evaluated exactly as a just out of college fellow: all that matters is how you perform on that whiteboard test on that particular question in that particular day. That is the unfair part of it. Moreover the junior may even have advantage over you: he costs less.

<comment><USER28> The junior has an advantage that he has probably needed to write a sorting algorithm in the last couple of years for classes. In 14 years of coding the only times I have need to write sorting algorithms were for coding tests and university exercises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> My ideal hiring process for developers would be this:

First an on-site talk at the company site, with a general discussion with the candidate about his personality, background and technical experience, as well as a presentation of the company and the people he would be working with. A polite and pleasant talk, to feel each other out while still getting the relevant information.

After the interview is complete, the candidate would be given a couple of sheets of paper with two written tests: (1) A general IQ test. A lot of people seems to find these controversial (ignoring for the moment any legal issues which I believe are overblown), but I find them pretty good at gauging an individual's logic skills. (2) A small number of programming questions targeted to the language/platform/niche that the candidate would be working with. Not too hard or complicated, but merely a filter to quickly assess the candidate's experience. Questions about some common development paradigms, best practices, knowledge of frameworks, stuff like that.

The candidate would get 10-15 minutes for each of the two tests, and can do them any way s/he likes, in any order and with no requirements to complete all the questions (the questions s/he chooses, and choice between speed/thoroughness is itself an indicator about the candidate). S/he would complete the tests in a room alone without pressure or distractions.

After this, the interview process is complete. The candidate goes home and can be assessed from both his presence and statements, and the results from the tests. No confrontation necessary. The candidate gets a chance to look his best during a relaxed and affable conversation. The recruiter is able to easily get a picture of the person's hard qualifications. Any embarrassing slip-ups on the tests are evaluated offline after the candidate has left. Code is, after all, usually not written on a whiteboard in front of a group of people you have never met.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think this author is letting their ego get in the way. The interviewer doesn't have time to review their past work and make judgements on that. Devils advocate, even: How do they know you actually wrote that code? Granted I'm not on the programing side of things, but a white board presentation is a great way to quickly gauge how a person solves a problem, and if they know what they're talking about. My first programing job (in 2009) I was asked to hand write out a bubble sort. Ok, which flavor? Java? Sure thing. I got a few things wrong but the interviewer clearly saw I knew what I was talking about, I wasn't afraid to tackle a problem head on without a computer, and could think it through.

This author should really reconsider their attitude towards getting a job, and be willing to stand up and put the effort towards getting that job.

<comment><USER36> And how often have you had to write bubble sorts on the job? Or tackle coding problems without a computer?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Apply the 20/80 rule to software development. It's 20% technical, 80% people. My greatest challenge as an IT leader is not in writing code or solving technical problems, but in getting a team that plays together well. Although, I wouldn't be coding much as an IT leader, I would be happy to white board it to show that I still got it!

It's really difficult to access those who can code, I have seen plenty of people who can answer all sorts of technical questions/text book questions and yet they can't code their way out of a paper bag. Just as bad, the ones that can code but are not motivated nor desire to work well with others.

Stay humble!

</comment><comment><USER42> Quote from OA (actually a forum post)

" _All I was interested at that time was to get the hell out of there, not a place I want to work in or the kind of person I want to work with /under._"

...and, about a Skype based verbal interview with another company...

" _so I basically aced the verbal technical test on Skype. But I don 't think I'll get the job anyway because the interviewers all seem like young punks who may not think I would fit their hip/young group._"

I suspect that the original author has a specific idea of the kind of context that s/he wants to work in. One hopes that s/he finds a suitable company soon.

<comment><USER21> Quotes from OA, from a later post in that same forum:

       "I was told the hiring manager was very keen to make me an offer but I have to travel about 4 to 5 hours to their office for onsite final interview."

      "Yes, it's the team of young punks who interviewed me."

      "This was a recruiter involved exercise where I was contacted. Did not apply for this position."

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Question to non developer profiles in SV (marketing, sales, PM, etc etc): does your interview include the whiteboard test?

</comment><comment><USER44> Always pisses me off seeing these entitled "programmers" whining about their technical skills being tested. What I wouldn't do to be able to show how well I can code in person. Instead I always get filtered out after non-technical Skype interviews.

</comment><comment><USER45> Seems like a whiteboard win-win. Company did not make an unsuitable hire. Candidate did not take an unsuitable job.

<comment><USER46> The candidate doesn't know if the job was suitable or not because they wrote the company off for not having HR standards inline with their own.

<comment><USER33> They have thrown him the CV and the candidate does not know the company was run by idiots? You must be joking.

<comment><USER46> I'm not joking because I don't know much about the company other than it sounds like it was a large company. (Author says "avoid large companies in his post").

If the people that interviewed him at a large company were unprofessional when he refused THEIR process, that doesn't mean the company is necessarily bad. He doesn't know.

I've never worked at a company, even a small one, where I thought everyone was competent. He had an opportunity to placate them and give the company a chance but he was so set on trying to tell them why their process was flawed and how his was better (look at my github and code).

Part of working at a large company is being able to be tactful and wade through the bullshit, often times dealing with incompetent people or those that do things differently. Maybe large companies aren't for him. They aren't for me either.

But it's not fair to say the company was run by idiots because they tossed a resume back at him when he refused their process. He obviously lacks tact and knows everything while being insecure at the same time (see young punks statement in thread). We also don't know that the interviewers are running the company as you suggest. If it's a large company, they probably aren't.

<comment><USER36> "Part of working at a large company is being able to be tactful and wade through the bullshit"

^ This may be the only thing a whiteboard test is actually good for.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Empirical Vision – Our AI Turns Webcams into Productivity Trackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.empiricalautomation.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, this is James from Empirical Automation, and today I'm super excited to present the launch of our latest AI software product, Empirical Vision.

With Empirical Vision you can track machine output, increase employee accountability, maintain quality standards, and reward star performers, while identifying opportunities for process improvement.

Our software turns any USB webcam into your personal monitoring and output recording device. Get daily reports of production output and real-time alerts whenever a machine goes down, or employee productivity wanes.

For a limited time we will TEST THE SOFTWARE FOR YOU, by analyzing a short video clip of your production process and training our AI to recognize and track the task or process! If you reach out to me directly here via Hacker News, we'd be happy to do a few tests for free over the next couple of days. We are very proud to show and prove our software's power, and have had fantastic results with our first customers already.

Scroll down on the main product page to see a demo of how the software works, as well as videos from early customers and pilot trials:

[http://www.empiricalautomation.com/vision.html](http://www.empiricalautomation.com/vision.html)

Looking forward to your comments and feedback!

<comment><USER2> I have so many problems with this it's hard to articulate. from pithy "1984 called and they want you to make home televisions" to scary "micromanaging your employee's to a soul destroying level"

This is like reading an advert for a dystopian corporate overlord future.

i look forward to the report that manages each individuals productivity to the point that when it goes below a certain level you just replace them like a worn cog.

But sure, you do you!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey man thanks for the response.

I'm sorry you feel that way about our product. To us it falls in the category of productivity and management tools in general. As a crude example, you ever have a boss that proxies engagement by time logged on slack, github commits, etc? Those seem like crappy examples, and at previous firms I saw it encourage the wrong behavior. We figure at least in the physical work world there ought to be much better ways to track output.

The main use case is definitely more machine oriented. We've had some good trials for simple human labor and human-machine collaboration. One user said they wanted to try and use our system to interview job applicants. So there's definitely a positive side for people too, which is rewarding high performers and helping find the right people for the job.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask PG: What are the startup hubs outside of the US? - <AUTHOR>

PG, you mention that there are 5-6 startup hubs worldwide. I think you mentioned Silicon Valley and Cambridge. Where are the other 3-4? Are they too in the US? <comment><USER3> "followed by Cambridge/Boston" -- really? When I lived there, it was very very hard to find technical people that were not "corporate drones". I new maybe of only one or two startup (I am not sure they ended up anywhere). Most other companies are "enterprise oriented", such as VM-ware types.

I remember attending few session at an incubator close to MIT campus. The speeches were given for people that had build products like "scanners" for airports, and government etc.. not software oriented One thing I remember, this guy from HBS, with a very smug attitude ( maybe b/c he got into haavad he thought he was better than everybody). Not a hacker friendly atmosphere at all. Most people there were the "business" types, that had "ideas" and buzzwords, but very low on concrete implementation and treated technical skills just as a commodity that could bought off in India.

Boston is not "eccentric" and "whacky" enough to support an environment with lots of startups with crazy and novel ideas. Here is few facts:

You don't see naked people in the streets on Boston's fairs. It is mostly family/9-5-er or young students, which tells you about the general population of the place. If you are in your mid 20s, and out of school, it is not a good place to be.

You can't buy alcohol on Sundays You can't have wine/beer in a coffee place (Puritanism at max)

Most coffee/food places around Harvard sq. and Davis sq (the artsy part) closed by MIDNIGHT!!! WTF? Most good programmers I know are most efficient at midnight, and having things/places to get "fuel", (coffee and food) and some re-energizing is very important.

For many reasons, I think NYC would be a better place for a startup, if it wasn't so damn expensive, which kills ideas that have no business model right away. But as a place is very vibrant, lots of stuff to do, good looking women, and lots of money around, which are motivators for people to try harder and make it happen.

The only thing that the Boston/Cambridge are has is it's student population. -- which not surprisingly moves out somewhere else after school, and that it is a very walk-able city. You can walk to places, take the T (subway), which is very cool.

Personally, I like SF a lot, but I would never live in the South Bay. All those seas of parking lots and the "drive everywhere" culture is very depressing and soul drenching. Efficient for big corporations like HP and Yahoo, but I can't see it being good for a small start up. My preference for startups: SF beats them all. NYC second (if it wasn't so damn expensive), but it has bonus point for being so close to the old media advertising, then Cambridge/Boston (for having so many college kids around).

I think, Eastern Europe is going to become more prominent in the IT world. You have lots of smart and well educated people at sciences, still cheap, and with a good sense of entrepreneurship (unlike India or China, which see life more as a career, eastern europeans are new to capitalism, and view this time as a great opportunity). It will take a decade or so, but you will see more things coming out from places like Hungary, Croatia, Romania etc. I doubt it will ever be a single large European "hub".

Edited for spelling, and adding some content.

<comment><USER4> They serve beer and wine in coffee shops in California?

Strange.

<comment><USER3> Yes, good wine, beer, and Soju cocktails. And you can even drink it outside (if a coffee place has tables outside).

Plus, you can go with shorts at work, it's ok to wake up late, and sometimes work from home, as long as you get you sh!t done.

Plus, plenty of free food and drinks on the kitchen.

And plenty of things like that, that you just wont find in 99% of the companies on the East Coast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not including China and India (which I don't know well enough to talk about), roughly: SV, Boston, {Seattle, Austin, NYC, London}.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you're in europe, London is definately the place to be.

But bring a big suitcase, pack a suit and a tie and stuff the remaining space with money ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> You've just mentioned my reservation about London: because cost of living - <USER2> startup's main costs in the beginning - is so much higher than the rest of Europe, your increased burn rate would have to be justified by increased opportunities. Or are all startup hubs expensive to live in?

<comment><USER5> No. London shares with NYC the problem of being a big city and thus expensive to live in. Some of the other places are quite cheap. SV is. SF is expensive, but SV is a huge expanse of cheap, month-to-month apts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Waterloo, Ontario.

The University of Waterloo has a policy that any IP developed by profs or grad students is owned by them rather than the university. In addition Waterloo was the first school to do co-op in engineering when it was founded in 1957 (and still has the largest co-op program in the world.) This adds up to an ungodly number of startups coming outof Waterloo. Something like 10-15% of all startups in Canada.

The UW computer science school is actually named after David Cheriton, the Waterloo grad who introduced Sergey and Larry to investors, and made a few billion out of his stake in Google. More damningly perhaps, Microsoft hires more engineers from Waterloo than anywhere else :)

<comment><USER8> "The University of Waterloo has a policy that any IP developed by profs or grad students is owned by them rather than the university."

wow - that's almost unheard of at any good university in the US

<comment><USER9> I heard this is still the case in California by state law. Are there any other places where professors own all of there IP?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I asked this a while ago... here's the responses:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43195>

</comment><comment><USER11> Don't forget the original Cambridge, it's especially good for biotech.

Mik

P.S. Cambridge MA was renamed from Newtowne in 1638 as a publicity stunt when Harvard was formed

</comment><comment><USER12> Beijing - home to Sina, Sohu, Google China, IBM Software Lab, Microsoft and two world class universities (Tsinghua and Beijing University). There are also tons of smaller startups started by both native Chinese entrepreneurs as well as foreigners. The energy level is incredible there.

<comment><USER8> my only concern with Bejing as opposed to Shanghai is how well they enforce certain laws (since it is the capital). Granted fighting corruption is one thing, but the better they enforce laws like censorship (that hinder creativity), the worse for business in general...

Look at Singapore (which is the model that China eventually wants to be for better or worse)... it's so repressed and 50's clean that you have natives with masters degrees who don't know how to have sex (no I am not making this up - this was news five years ago).

Singapore offsets its population and innovation problem through gov sponsored immigration (typically favoring the west) and a laissez faire attitude on taboo industries like biotech (an attitude that China shares).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Shanghai is an enormous startup hub.

Bangalore and Mumbai (formerly Bombay) are also quite large from what I understand, but I haven't dealt enough with that market to know exactly how large they are.

<comment><USER14> Hosting a lot of startups doesn't turn a particular town or region into a startup hub. I don't know China well to talk about it, but I've never heard about cool successful startups in China. Maybe it's like here, in Academgorodok, Russia: a lot of IT companies, but they all are outsourcers or small players. Have you ever heard about startup from Academgorodok?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What about the top few in the US. Of course Silicon Valley is tops, followed by Cambridge/Boston. But after that, perhaps: Boulder, Los Angeles, New York, Austin, Seattle.

Any other votes?

<comment><USER13> The D.C. area has a pretty healthy startup scene.

<comment><USER16> I'm in the DC area. I can't really say I notice much startup vibe. Anyone interested in getting in touch?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know that several countries have tried to replicate the Silicon Valley model to various degrees of success. I think by far Silicon Valley is at the top of the list with the others lagging far behind but I can't think of where in the world there would be good startup hubs.

</comment><comment><USER18> NYC is getting pretty good startup vibe. Check out www.alleyinsider.com, www.nextny.org, and a bunch of startup-related Meetups.

</comment><comment><USER19> I gotta put Vancouver BC on that list. There are way too many startups coming from there not to make mention of it.

</comment><comment><USER4> How is Chicago?

I would expect it to be a great city, since it's 24/7 and has a huge finance industry.

<comment><USER20> Calling Chicago a 24-hour city is overstating the case a little bit. There is some startup activity there, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Bangalore.

<comment><USER22> could you mention a few places to check out the startup action ?

<comment><USER23> Attend the BarCamp, in November I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Anybody from Mexico?

</comment><comment><USER25> Maybe Japan?

<comment><USER8> I could be wrong, but based on my personal experience Japanese culture at large frowns heavily at risk (especially if you've already failed once). People tend to look down on you unless you work for big respectable company 'x' with respectable title 'y'. Not to mention it's very difficult living on the cheap in Japan. You'll have much better luck in NY...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> London?

</comment><comment><USER27> London</comment>


Ask HN: Upwork for top tier programmers? - <AUTHOR> Are there any services for hiring high-end programmers for sub-10 hour projects? I've used Upwork pretty extensively for busy-work type programming, but I'm trying to find something for algorithm-heavy programming where code quality matters. Anyone have any experience in this area? <comment><USER2> No, there's no Upwork for top-tier programmers. Top-tier programmers who engage in consulting have the means to differentiate themselves. Being part of a marketplace like Upwork is great for the marketplace, great for the buyer and not so great for the seller. If you are capable of selling top tier services, you probably don't want to be commoditized by a marketplace that drives prices down.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sub 10-hour projects are an odd niche. May I ask why that number? Typically, top-tier programmers are able to charge more for shorter engagements because they can get clear on requirements quickly and build the "right thing" correctly the first time (maintainable, with tests, etc), not just a "loosely related thing". Usually, those gigs take more than 10 hours.

</comment><comment><USER4> You should try Upwork Pro - everyone is pre-screened and you can tell the recruiter exactly what you want

[https://www.upwork.com/pro/hire-developers/](https://www.upwork.com/pro/hire- developers/)

</comment><comment><USER5> toptal and x-team

</comment><comment><USER6> github.com</comment>


Most common "Y2K-style" bugs today? - <AUTHOR> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/63131/most-common-y2k-style-bugs-today

<comment><USER2> Daylight Savings Time issues, and other time-sensitive code snafus like one, will likely rear their ugly heads periodically for the foreseeable future:

<https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5852>

Especially since the SA bug was patched to "match 2020 and onwards..."

</comment><comment><USER3> When Unix time overflows...</comment>


Stackoverflow attention, PHP vs other languages - <AUTHOR>

Recently I started learning Python (used to do PHP before), this gave me a fresh perspective on stackoverflow.com and I began wondering is it just me?
Whenever I had questions about PHP or JS, the views quickly racked up to ~20-30 in seconds and I had an answer or a few in a less than 15 minutes. Now after posting my third Python related question, I'm starting to see a pattern of meaningfully less views and few, if any, answers/comments.
If you look at the number of questions, PHP with ~346K and Python with ~165K, that is kinda what you should expect. So does this mean that when it comes to vibrancy and rapid attention, PHP is as good as it gets on stackoverflow?
P.S. I did look up Java and Javascript, which by the numbers seem to equal PHP. <comment><USER2> I spend a fair amount of time in the Python StackOverflow tag. I've noticed that questions which ask about dealing with third party modules tend to get fewer answers/views than questions that deal exclusively with problems that can be solved within the Python standard libraries.

It looks like all of your python related questions deal with third party libraries.

You obviously know how to ask decent questions on StackOverflow, as I can see you're providing good code examples. In the case where you're dealing with third party modules in Python, I would suggest taking the extra step of including links to the documentation/tutorials that got you to the point you're at.

<comment><USER3> Too true, unfortunate as it may be, but I don't think many people have that much experience in third-party Python libraries. Your best bet is to try and find examples from the source or find somewhere that uses it. I've had the same problems myself, a lot of the bigger libraries like Django etc. have good documentation, so its usually not a problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> As funny as it may sound, I was a bit intimidated by Django and thus choose to go for Flask instead for my first steps. There is no rationale behind this, just some strange feeling. Thought I'd mention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can you link your questions?

I don't know about using Stackoverflow for Python, but because there are so many active Python mailing lists, Google and gmane search might also be a good bet. (<http://search.gmane.org/>)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, here's the link [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14965973/how-to- access-sq...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14965973/how-to-access- sqlalchemy-object-in-jinja-template-using-column-key)

Usually stackoverflow is the place I go to when I've exhausted my search options, but still thanks for the link (gmane), I was not aware of it.

<comment><USER5> funny i was just reading this question on SO and someone answered it before I could!!</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft tablet OS not coming until fall 2012, if ever? - <AUTHOR> http://m.engadget.com/default/article.do?artUrl=http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/03/microsoft-tablet-os-not-coming-until-fall-2012/&category=classic&subCategory=&type=&postPage=1

<comment><USER2> Just for context: At that point, Apple's iPad 3 will have been shipping for nearly six months as will second generation Android and WebOS tablets.

To their credit, Microsoft is getting faster (it took them more than three years to ship Windows Phone 7 after the introduction of the iPhone, they might need one year less to ship a tablet OS).

</comment><comment><USER3> If this is the case then any Microsoft tablet is going to be instantly Zuneified. While they may be attractive to some consumers, it's too little too late.

</comment><comment><USER4> When they did make a tablet OS 10 years ago, nobody wanted it. They have a lot of things to unlearn. It's gotta take some time.

<comment><USER5> They didn't make a tablet OS - they just added a wacom pen digitizer to some laptops instead of a mouse.

And before you flame me for being anti-whatever, I developed software commercially as a contractor for HP for 'windows for pen' in 1993, and owned and liked 2 Tablet PCs during 2002-2006, so I have a pretty clear idea of what they were.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Power system simulation on GNU Octave in WASM - <AUTHOR> https://matpower.app <comment><USER2> This is pretty neat, but can the creator show what it would look like on a realistic system with Ex: 20k+ buses. This is not uncommon in the industry.

I'm also curious about why a web GUI is being used here? Power Systems information varies by country, but is generally not something that will ever be publically available, so desktop applications have done well here.

After more thinking, I guess it's a free way for researchers to upload and run public models using free software?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are some test cases included in MATPOWER that are around that size and may be imported. I only embedded small test cases in the application to keep the download size down.

I imagine this app being quite useful to lecturers teaching Power Engineering at Universities. Being able to just send students a link and not requiring them to install complex libraries, deal with licenses or restricted trial versions and them not having to use a particular OS or CPU architecture should help get them started quickly.

[https://github.com/MATPOWER/matpower/tree/master/data](https://github.com/MATPOWER/matpower/tree/master/data)

<comment><USER2> Btw...checked out your open source apps. Nice work. I just wish industry was bigger into building their own tools (like was common in the 80s when everyone wrote their own loadflow tools) instead of being reliant upon vendors for everything. There are advantages though to both.

<comment><AUTHOR> My view is that the open source projects for power system simulation available now are approaching a stage where they can perform all of the main functions of commercial tools. In some cases, they even offer functionality that expensive proprietary applications do not have. However, they are typically provided as libraries or with text-based interfaces.

WebAssembly creates an exciting opportunity to combine these libraries with convenient, reactive user interfaces that help to manage the their complexity. The web development community is so large and the frameworks and tools available are of such high quality that an individual, or small team of developers, can quickly create complex applications that would have previously taken much longer. Ultimately, this should accelerate the process of bringing the latest research to industry.

<comment><USER2> I've been making a similar argument for awhile. With the libraries now available and high level tools (Python, SQL, Numpy...etc) we can build tiny applications (just a few pages of code) that are easy to maintain and do exactly what we need. So replacing the majority of PSSE isn't very hard. An entire EMS system is another game entirely. It's not just the algorithms, but the full integration with SCADA and other things that most companies don't want to get involved with (too much risk).

On a different note, how are you approaching sparse matrices in Octave? Also, I assumed Octave's performance would be a non-starter here for large models. Is it performant enough for you?

<comment><AUTHOR> Octave includes support for sparse matrices and MATPOWER makes use of them by default. It doesn't require any additional effort from me. In general, Octave can quite match MATLAB for performance, but it is typically not far off. Running it as WebAssembly also comes with a small performance penalty. I haven't run any benchmarks yet, but this can be expected to improve as browser vendors optimize their runtimes.

Octave is using UMFPACK to solve sparse systems of linear equations. There may be some performance to be gained by using KLU with AMD preordering.

I am interested to know how best to compile BLAS and LAPACK to WebAssembly. Traditionally, implementations optimized for a particular machine architecture are used to extract maximum performance. However, WebAssembly targets a stack- based conceptual machine. At present, I use LAPACK v3.4.2 and convert it to C with f2c before compiling to WebAssembly. It would be interesting to perform some benchmark tests against other implementations and compare across browsers.

<comment><USER2> Neat and thanks for the explanations! When you say running it as Webassembly, is the entire thing compiled that way, or is that just in the front end with Octave running on the server?

<comment><AUTHOR> The whole application runs on the client (in the browser). The server just serves up static resources. These are cached by the browser so the application will still work if you are offline. The result is much like the desktop applications you mentioned, but without anything needing to be installed.

The JavaScript application presents the UI and controls editing of a JSON representation of the MATPOWER case structure. This data can be seen using the JSON option on the Export page. The WebAssembly program contains GNU Octave and its dependencies. It is run in a WebWorker (background thread) and the JSON data is passed to and fro. The program that converts the JSON into Octave data structures and back again is available here:

[https://github.com/rwl/octpower](https://github.com/rwl/octpower)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How much would be Apple losing by having the "In Memoriam" page on Apple.com - <AUTHOR>

With a huge product launch nearing (The iPhone 4/4S), what would be Apple's loss figures since there is no mention of the upcoming product on the companies' front page.<p>P.S. This is aimed at estimating the potential losses of the company. <comment><USER2> I wondered the same myself, but if I were Apple, it could be $100 Million and I would't care. They owe everything to Steve.</comment>


Google buys 1,000 patents from IBM to defend Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/google-purchases-1-023-patents-from-ibm-to-bolster-portfolio.html

<comment><USER2> I understand that patents are negotiable instruments like stock certificates, nevertheless it seems like cheating when you can simply buy creative ideas to engage in what seems like "Magic: The Gathering"-style legal warfare.

"Ha ha! My 'System and Apparatus for Propagation of Radio Signals' confers a +2 legal mumbo-jumbo bonus on my 'Transmitter switch-on in a dual-mode mobile phone'. Your move, sport."

<comment><USER3> I don't know how much this kind of patent warfare happens outside software. It's only in software that you can _count on_ competitors "infringing" your "inventions" if you simply buy enough patents.

<comment><USER4> I would have thought there are many other industries where it is just as possible for patents to work in this way, though I have no idea which, if any, do.

For example I could imagine car manufacturers all having a bunch of patents... just imagine. Nissan have a patent on controlling your car radio from buttons on the steering wheel. Ford have a patent for having the horn button on a stick that's connected to the wheel, while VW have a similar one for the horn button right on the wheel itself.. Could go on and on, and they could have great fun taking each other to court.

Some industries maybe aren't so open to pointless patents (maybe pharmaceuticals?), but in most I think you could do a hell of a lot. Maybe they already do the same, but we just don't hear about it. Maybe they could, but are wise enough not to bother. Maybe the patents system has just been in use for a longer time in those industries, so companies aren't allowed to get away with so much crap?

<comment><USER5> FYI, this actually happened in the nascent aviation industry--the government had to step in to force the players to cross-license their patents (in order to have planes for World War I): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war>

Some interesting bits from that Wikipedia page, which demonstrate that patents don't necessarily promote innovation and that being too litigious with them can damage one's reputation:

From the "Patent War" section:

"The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their development of new aircraft designs, and by 1911 Wright aircraft were inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[9] Indeed, aviation development in the US was suppressed to such an extent that when the U.S. entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and the U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines."

From the "Aftermath" section:

"The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who were generally regarded before this as heroes. Critics said the brothers actions may have retarded the development of aviation,[9][14] and compared their actions unfavorably to European inventors, who worked more openly."

<comment><USER5> BTW, while the government had to intervene in the aircraft case, there have been cases of various companies coming together to form their own private patent pool too, the most famous of which would be related to the sewing machine: [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a- smartphone-l...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone- like-a-sewing-machine/)

"The Sewing Machine War was the first instance of what is today called a 'patent thicket.' The disputes prevented Singer from selling his invention, and tensions ran high in and out of court: When Howe personally called on Singer, Singer threatened to throw him down a flight of stairs.

But there's a happy ending to the story, as your machine-stitched clothes evince. The Sewing Machine War ended with a just and lasting peace in 1856, when Orlando B. Potter--a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs--suggested a solution that Mossoff calls 'groundbreaking but also breathtakingly simple': The patent-holders would combine their patents in a 'patent pool' and share the profits from selling the machines. The patent pool participants lived happily and wealthily ever after--or at least until 1877, when the last patent expired."

<comment><USER5> But, it turns out that, the sewing machine patent pool may have inhibited innovation, according to this paper: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1308997>).

"Contrary to theoretical predictions, the sewing machine pool appears to have discouraged patenting and innovation, in particular for the members of the pool. Data on stitches per minute, as an objectively quantifiable measure of performance, confirm these findings. Innovation for both members and outside firms slowed as soon as the pool had been established and resumed only after it had dissolved. "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Exactly 1023 patents? Does Google do those jokes even in a legal context? (Maybe someone had to count them using only his fingers)

<comment><USER7> 1023 = 2^10 - 1. It would have taken all the 10 fingers.

<comment><USER8> 1023=2^10, 0-indexed.

<comment><USER9> Even 0 indexed, 2^10 patents is still 1024 patents.

<comment><USER10> You missed their secret weapon, the zeroth patent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can is say one thing "patent reform" please.

This trend really bugs me all the big companies are spending billions of dollars on papers instead of putting it into Innovation / new products etc.

If this trend goes on and more patent trolls enter the field everyone of us needs to have a patent lawyer next to our desk. Lodsys allready proved its worth to go after the lowest hanging fruit.

I dont want to imagine what happens if one of the big tech companies turn evil.

<comment><USER12> Except these patents (and the massive profits they generated for IBM via this sale) are the direct result of R&D.

IBM would be crazy not to invest the profit back into R&D to develop another patent library...

<comment><USER13> Not really. Most are the direct result of IBM's system of internal rewards for patenting. This results in thousands of questionalble patents. Being that it is easier to get than eliminate a patent, IBM is a company deeply engaged in destroying the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just don't get how those amounts of patent help anything. Don't you just need the good ones? Every company seems to hoard them by number instead of picking them by validity.

"Ok fine, you can take my hyperlink-in-any-application patent but you've got to buy my 1000 other crappy patents about artificial-life-in-smarphone". Who's got to select the 1023 patents?

<comment><USER15> If I recall correctly, each patent lawsuit takes $1 mil to resolve. The goal is to inflict massive costs until the other one wants to negotiate a settlement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My first assumption is that they did this to go after Apple, and then it dawned on me: Microsoft is actually going after hardware vendors for money -- so I wonder of this has something to do with that? [http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft- paten...](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070511-microsoft-patent- android.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> Serious question; would it have been cheaper to just license the patents on a royalty basis?

<comment><USER18> That would be like buying the bullets instead of the weapon.

<comment><USER19> But I thought Google's patent play is a defensive play. So they should be looking for shields and armors not guns and bullets.

<comment><USER20> Mutually Assured Destruction is a defensive play... it's a recognized form of deterrence:

 _Mutually Assured Destruction is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm thereafter._

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Serious question: is this a piece of protest performance art?

</comment><comment><USER22> The number of patents licensed = 1023 = 2^10 - 1.

Ofcourse, there can be doubt about their seriousness this time.

</comment><comment><USER23> In case you didn't notice, mobile is the next big thing and everyone who is worth anything is either spending or making billions of dollars or both.

<comment><USER24> It's been here for a while already.</comment></comment>


How open source makes Swedish startups stronger [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_yOxyNQwSI <comment><USER2> It makes Swedish startups stronger (and any other startups) because you don't have to put as much money into software licensing.

When you have more time than money, it makes sense. When your company gets big enough and you have more money than time, more proprietary/commercial software becomes an option.

<comment><AUTHOR> I find it interesting however that even the more mature companies I interviewed also prefered using open source software. Like one of the CTO's who's company have 30+ employees.</comment></comment>


Is Your Startup A Cash or Equity Business? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eladgil.com/2010/08/is-your-startup-cash-or-equity-business.html

<comment><USER2> _Figuring out what sort of business you want to start, (or, in hindsight, have started) impacts everything from whether you should raise money to how to compensate your employees._

Interestingly enough, the corollary is also true. Figuring out what sort of headaches you want to deal with helps you decide what sort of business you should start.

I prefer release early/often, grassroots B2B customer development, and bootstrapping over large development cycles, long-handed B2C marketing, and funding. That is precisely why I focus my efforts on creating cash businesses that are finely targeted and strive for profitability as soon as possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely agree - founders should think through what they want from their business up front, and what sorts of headaches they do or do not want to have to deal with over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Interesting viewpoint Elad. A few points/considerations:

Building equity valuable companies is way tougher and much riskier. Your examples of Google, Facebook, Twitter are all rare. And for every Goog, Twitter, FB, there are many carcasses of others who've not made it. For entrepreneurs balancing risk-reward, trying to build a company that is solely equity valuable is tough.

Also, I don't think the equation is quite so binary. Cash businesses, by virtue of the cash they generate, can expand and enter adjacent markets and these growth initiatives can increase the equity value of the company. Amazon comes to mind.

Lastly, although these cash businesses are not as sexy, there is still equity value there. There is a whole ecosystem of mid-market private equity firms interested in these types of companies and buying their equity.

<comment><USER4> for many cash businesses, the equity is much smaller than you would think. I run what is essentially a hosting company, right? I've gotten a few offers, and do you know how hosting companies are valued?

approximately one year revenue plus the value of your hardware.

And this is a growing company in a rapidly growing market (I double every 6-8 months)

I mean, it's something, but not compared to what you expect from equity businesses, and not nearly enough to cause a rational agent to sell at the margins we see, I mean, unless you were just sick of doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a very useful distinction, especially for partnerships. I've seen many partnerships in my role (as a business coach) where this distinction has been the root of all their disputes - one is choosing to invest for the future in an equity business, while the other is choosing to maximise the immediate cash income.

FWIWI, most businesses I've encountered are cash businesses - some consciously ("I bought myself a job") and many through lack of realisation that there is an alternative they can choose.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point that companies change over time - founders need a cash reward for their effort at some point, and companies (Microsoft is a great example) will often reach the peak of their equity build, in which case switching to cash may be in the better interests of stockholders, employees etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> One thing that's not mentioned, is the tax implications of each.

In a cash-flow business you're going to wind up paying out ~45 - 50% in taxes on the income (especially if you live in CA!!!)

In an equity business you wind up paying on capital gains, which if you hold your stock for more than 1 year can be as low as 15% (in the US, anyways).

Once you do the math accross 3 - 5 years it often makes more sense to build an equity valuable company for sale.

For cash-flow heavy businesses, a strategy to reduce tax and increase equity value can be to pay modest salaries and pump the bulk of the cash back into business expansion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Really good point. I was thinking of putting this in the post but decided to not get into it. Thanks for pointing it out.

<comment><USER7> It will be great to build a business which is cash + equity similar to 37signals. It had early cash-flow and value of equity is definitely similar to equity based businesses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Event business (conferences, tradeshows, music events) is another example of cash business. You can be profitable within weeks from the start.

</comment><comment><USER9> Great post. Keep it up Elad!</comment>


Hologram like device animates objects using ultrasound waves - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/13/hologram-like-device-animates-objects-using-ultrasound-waves <comment><AUTHOR> I put in a comment on [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16243276](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16243276) on this approach, probably not novel even then, and ideas are pretty much nothing. However it's awesome to see something actually get built kinda validating it!</comment>


An Invisible City Beneath Paris - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-invisible-city-beneath-paris <comment><USER2> I lived in Paris for over 10 years, and a good deal of my social circle comes from the catacombs.

This article, like others, are so eager to wrap an outing into the catacombs as some type of adventure, a mystical experience, where misstep ends in death and dying a slow death in a deep corner of a labyrinth is inevitable but for your guide.

The catacombs are the Parisian equivalent of hanging out in the woods / trainyard / whatever when you were 19 - 25. Paris is en expensive city. When you're young and want to go out / get drunk / leave the watchful eye of your parents and societal structures, you go into the catacombs.

If you go the weekends, you have to try very very hard to avoid people. There are no "catacomb rules" or codes of conduct. It's a place used for self expression, typically of youth, and mainly for socialising.

It's a little bit frustrating to see articles rendering what is very much a commonplace affair hyperbolic.

<comment><USER3> Did you go past the "banga" though?

<comment><USER2> Sure. It's a fun passage of you're going in via the south. Typically I'd prefer the north and the private entrances.. less tourists, less mud, less graffiti.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I went to the public part, on a guided tour.

You only get to see a small part of the many, many millions of bones, piled from floor to ceiling. And somehow, while you're down there, you adapt quickly to the "new normal" and it's simply morbidly fascinating. Like being in a haunted house.

But then, once you take the elevator back up to the surface, and you walk down the same street in normal life with normal people... and you realize the many, many, many millions of bones (an estimated 6-7 million people) weren't a horror movie you saw that's now ended, but are _still_ right there, just a mere five stories beneath your feet. And they're not going anywhere. It was only then that I realized... it was _real_. Not a movie, not fake. It's a crazy experience.

</comment><comment><USER5> For those who will probably never get a chance to actually visit, a quick Google finds maps of the tunnel system and you can see just how large it is (public part is the red area):

[http://bienfun.free.fr/Plan-des-catacombes- nexus-2007.jpg](http://bienfun.free.fr/Plan-des-catacombes-nexus-2007.jpg)

[https://blogs.valpo.edu/studyabroad/files/2011/03/plan_catac...](https://blogs.valpo.edu/studyabroad/files/2011/03/plan_catacombes.jpg)

(In French, naturally, but French<>English is one of the cases where Google Translate works very well.)

<comment><USER6> Street View would be amazing in there...

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't that destroy a bit of the magic?

<comment><USER7> I mean, being able to visit without actually visiting could spoil a possible later real experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of my biggest regrets is not visiting this place when I was living in Paris.

A friend of a friend knew the ropes and his way around and was eager to show the foreigner his hidden playground.

I didn't entertain the offer out of fear for my own safety.

Carpe diem.

</comment><comment><USER9> I would love to visit, but this article made me want something even simpler. I wish I had the time to read the New Yorker more often.

<comment> shaki-dora The New Yorker is the one US magazine I subscribe to. It's only about 1 Euro per week even outside the US, so I don't feel bad about not reading it. I'm also planning to use the collected covers to paper a kitchen wall soon, which will solidify my reputation of an insufferable hipster but also look kinda neat.

<comment><USER10> Much cheaper: subscribe to Apple News+. 30 day free trial, then $9.99/month for total access on computers/tablets/phones. Includes the New Yorker among the 251 magazines available in the U.S. as of March 25, 2019: [https://www.macstories.net/news/a-complete-list-of-all- the-m...](https://www.macstories.net/news/a-complete-list-of-all-the- magazines-available-for-apple-news-in-the-u-s-so-far/)

<comment><USER11> Not cheaper than 1 EUR/week

Not available in most of Europe

Can't use it to paper a wall

<comment><USER10> When it gets to Europe, then.

<comment><USER10> Just did the math: 1 Euro/week = $1.12 U.S./week 4 x $1.12 = $4.48/month Apple News+ = $9.99/month So, for an additional $5.51/month ($1.38/week = 1.23 Euro/week), you get full access to over 250 other magazines and a number of newspapers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Robert Macfarlane (the author of this article) has written some great books. The last one I read was The Wild Places [1] which I highly recommend.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2688775-the-wild- places](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2688775-the-wild-places)

</comment><comment><USER13> I went down into these a few times with more knowledgable (or foolhardy?) friends as a teen ager. I found it pretty frightening.

</comment><comment><USER14> There is an enjoyable book, written by someone who has explored these and ( _many_ ) other deep places in the world. I think I saw it posted on HN originally.

Book name: Underground

Author: Will hunt

amazon search url: [https://www.amazon.com/s?k=under+ground+will+hunt](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=under+ground+will+hunt)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm impressed that they still stick to the carbide lamps instead of switching to LEDs

<comment><USER16> A seasoned cataphile invited me for the yearly gathering of the carbide-lamp holders in the catacombs one night last year. It's really like a different dimension of Paris and truly awesome and unique. It was a party of about 100 people or more, with stolen electricity powering a frenchcore rave dancefloor and everything.

While I highly recommend both the public and the illegal part if you have the chance, definitely don't go without an experienced guide as it can be dangerous for real. There are also strict social codes that should be followed when crossing paths with others down there.

<comment><USER2> Strict social codes ? Dangerous ?

Your friend might have been been pulling your leg (or taking himself too seriously..)

There are no social codes. That's the appeal of the catacombs. The space imposes no rules or structure. It is a bubble of freedom. Anything you follow is self imposed.

<comment><USER16> Maybe I should have formulated myself better. Like you say, it's self- imposed/self-enforced.

The danger is definitely real. If you don't know where you're going you might get lost and people get lost for good from time to time. In the more visited parts someone might find you, but if you take a wrong turn and fall in bad luck it's no good.

I don't want a random tourist go unprepared after reading this and have an accident or require medical assistance when it could have been avoided. Just like if you go hiking a mountain or spelunking.

<comment><USER17> Haha I'm not surprised that you've ventured down there.

Did you go the same way as in the article or via another entrance?

<comment><USER16> o hai :D Different one.

<comment><USER17> You'll have to show me if I visit you in Paris ;) I asked Nena if she'd ventured down there while she lived in Paris but she had only been top the ones open to the general public.

<comment><USER16> For sure! August is a great time to visit FWIW, Parisians flee the city for vacation (and the tourist load is always high here any time of the year anyway), so more quiet and calm.

The catacombs are constant temperature, so a great way to escape the heatwave ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> earlier HN item [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19386038](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19386038)</comment>


Silicon Valley Ruined Work Culture - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-ruined-work-culture/ <comment><USER2> Listen y'all there's a lot of comments in here about dress and culture and it boils down to the 'no true Scotsman' argument which you can look up on Wikipedia

No true professional can be casual period and casual culture doesn't scale anywhere beyond the bullshit we're seeing all over the tech industry

A lot of people will try to use silly outdated counter examples about people who dress professionally but aren't and people who don't dress professionally but are

Put that shit on a two by two matrix and find the fucking golden quadrant you wannabe software specialists

<comment><USER3> Is anyone else hearing a lot of _sniffing_ when artsyca unmutes Microsoft teams? I thought we were switching to slackerzomba or whatever

<comment><USER2> I'm not even sure what that means but have an upvote

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After reading some of these comments I needed a cleanse _of sorts_. I suspect I'm not the only one.

[https://fs.blog/2014/05/hunter-s-thompson-to-hume- logan/](https://fs.blog/2014/05/hunter-s-thompson-to-hume-logan/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Quite tellingly the first paragraph mentions casual dress

<comment><USER2> Casual dress goes with casual culture which is inherently toxic at scale

<comment><USER5> Can you be more specific about casual culture being inherently toxic at scale? I ask because I prefer a casual work culture (and casual dress), because in the grand scheme of things, most work isn't that important. We're not saving lives, we just pushing bits around. And I doubt you care what I'm wearing if I'm saving you're life.

<comment><USER2> You said it yourself dude

<comment><USER2> You said it yourself but I'll spell it out anyway

What you're saying essentially is you're not that invested in your work

That has societal repercussions in an organization when so many people who are essentially uninvested show up to work on any given day there's an unspoken ethos of defeatism that permeates every interaction

The casual clothing is a smell like any other in code that indicates precisely this bullshit mentality and it doesn't scale beyond the very initial phases

<comment><USER5> I get paid and the work gets done. I don't have to be passionate about it. It's just work.

I recommend introspection as it relates to life choices and identity. Nobody cares about their job on their death bed, only wishing they had prioritized more time with friends, family, and loved ones. Work backwards from there, and optimize to be happy with what you valued and how you spent your life. A job generates income, but is not who you are as a human.

TLDR Treating work as just work, and not something of significant importance, is not toxic IMHO. On the contrary, it is the healthiest way to address it as a necessary (for now) part of our lives. YMMV. Good luck.

<comment><USER2> > only wishing they had prioritized more time with friends, family, and loved > ones.

That's the point dude why would you spend a whole life passionlessly working like an emotionless robot only to regret not being with your friends?

<comment><USER5> The money part pays for everything else.

<comment><USER2> So the tradeoff is doing something you don't particularly value in exchange for something you do value I feel like you're ripping yourself off</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Second-Best City to move for startups - <AUTHOR>

I'm going to move this year from rural America to somewhere that is much more startup-friendly.
For the sake of a lot of things: taxes, cost-of-housing, congestion, state debt, etc -- I am not moving to SV.
So. Where's the next best place for a guy with a family to move that has lots of tech-savvy people, a good community of investors, readily-available bandwidth, potential college interns, and the cost of living is low?
I'm thinking Austin. Anybody have a better place? <comment><USER2> Boston meets all your criteria, except for cost of living.

If you live in New Hampshire (like I do) you can commute to pretty much any place other than Boston proper, and reduce your COL significantly. And even that, I worked in Cambridge for a while and it was manageable if I avoided peak rush hour times.

The majority of the startup activity isn't IN Boston anyway, it's in the general beltway between 495 and 128.

<comment><AUTHOR> Boston was a very, very close second place.

My feeling was that I could get out into the cheap countryside much easier in Austin, the cost of housing was generally much, much cheaper, and the traffic, bad as it was, wasn't up to par with the Boston area.

I'd love to hear reasons why I missed something.

<comment><USER3> I'm a 15-minute walk from Davis Square, where the subway is, and my rent is only $425 / month.

Not only is Boston the #2 city by number of startups:

[http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/06/startup- centers.ht...](http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/06/startup-centers.html)

It's the #1 city by number of universities. It's really a fantastic place with a terrific startup scene, and one that's still growing and getting more connected.

<comment><USER4> The Davis Square area is certainly very nice, I lived in it for the last half- dozen or so years of my stay in the Boston area (late '80s-very early '90s), but there's no way a family is going to fit into a $425/month apartment that's anywhere near it.

For the criteria of taxes, cost-of-housing, congestion, state debt and general cost of living the Boston area is just plain bad and as far as I know getting worse.

Commuting from southern New Hampshire isn't a great option either, the cost of living there is still pretty high and unless you can do it off peak it's very congested. And there are a lot of tasty startups in Cambridge, you'd need to have a commute to there be practical.

While I believe there's a big separation from the Boston area to the next largest startup areas in the nation, I think Daniel's criteria that rule out SV also rule out it, although not as strongly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We moved to Austin to benifit from the much better tax structure and lack of red tape when operating compared to California. Texas is very business freindly on purpose. They focus on it, and so far seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

Austin is a nice place and the people are very nice, but in the summer the humidity and heat gets pretty bad. Too bad its not right on the ocean like California or Seattle.

</comment><comment><USER6> Atlanta. It's a huge metro with a fairly low cost of living. Fair winter weather (no snow) and the summers are alright too. Lots of smart kids from Georgia Tech, plenty of security-related startups, lots of finance companies, etc. I also recently learned of an early stage tech statup seed funding firm based here (Shotput ventures).

</comment><comment><USER7> Dallas!!! Our startup community has grown like crazy over the past year and just keeps getting better! We have cool stuff going on like ShopSavvy, Traxo, Swingly, Woopra and more! Check out <http://launchdfw.com> as well. feel free to ping me directly if you want to chat about it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think Seattle is one of the top 3-4 cities for startups (in the US).

As far as your criteria go, cost-of-housing etc. is going to be much lesser than SV, but much more than Austin. No state income tax, just a sales tax. Traffic congestion is pretty bad. Business pay 1.5% of total revenue (not profit) as B&O taxes to the state.

Like the other top cities for tech-startups, heavily liberal in terms of politics. I vaguely remember reading some report that said that Seattle had a higher percentage of college-grads than every other major city in America. evergreen forests nearby, "you can ski in the morning and sail in the evening" is how my Microsoft recruiter described Seattle to me in the 90s :)

<comment><USER4> It should be noted that there's a serious effort to institute an income tax in Washington state.

It's probably hard to predict the likelihood of success, but today we can safely say it'll happen a lot sooner there than in Texas.

The gross receipts business tax is obviously necessary to capture money from Boeing in years it's not profitable, and didn't hurt eternally profitable Microsoft when it moved there (from Arizona, the home of the personal computer), but it can be a real pain for a not yet profitable startup and obviously raises the level for ramen profitability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Austin and Boulder are definitely active cities as far as Startups. NY and Boston are great too but living costs are pretty expensive.

</comment><comment><USER10> Some years back, I knew someone with a hacker career who bought one of those "Best Places" books and used the CD that came with it to do some custom searches for someplace low cost, high tech. Much to their frustration and chagrin, no matter how they tweaked it, the results showing low cost places with good opportunities for high tech jobs strongly favored Texas.

Obviously, the data is old. But I would think Texas is still your best bet for family-friendly prices and access to the tech scene. The state is quite large, so there are several large cities you could look at. All you would need to do would be to confirm this general trend, then check out which of the larger cities had the other factors you are looking for. (I personally would avoid Houston. It's horribly polluted. But that's just me.) So I don't think Austin is a bad idea at all.

Good luck with this.

EDIT: You can do some city comparisons here for free: <http://www.bestplaces.net/></comment>


Ask HN: What do you listen to, when you sit down to hack? - <AUTHOR>

Please mention a playlist or a particular song along with it's genre and why it helps you.<p>--<AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I usually hit digitally imported (<http://www.di.fm/>) and pick something from there.</comment>


Top countries expatriates in Tech want to go to - <AUTHOR> https://blog.techmeabroad.com/here-are-the-top-10-countries-expatriates-in-tech-want-to-go-to/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, we have computed tens of thousands of applications and searches to understand where people in Tech wish to work abroad, and thought we would share the data. Hope you like it! :)</comment>


Folklore.org: Touching Stories of Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.folklore.org/ProjectView.py?project=Macintosh&characters=Steve%20Jobs&detail=medium

<comment><AUTHOR> In case the site goes down (which I expect it may): here is another link: [http://web.archive.org/web/20110726072224/http://folklore.or...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110726072224/http://folklore.org/ProjectView.py?project=Macintosh&characters=Steve%20Jobs&detail=medium)</comment>


Why we don't use WordPress anymore - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/artificial-labs/why-we-don-t-use-wordpress-anymore-df1c4462cb48

<comment><USER2> I stopped using it about 3 years ago. We got our Wordpress installation hacked every 2 or 3 months. I'm uncertain about their security today, but back then was basically non-existent. Their plugin system is helpful, but it also increases the attack surface of your website.

Anyway, it certainly is a tool that might be useful to some, not so useful to others. It's good that those tools exist.

<comment><USER3> Even if it doesn't get hacked, worrying about the possibility of it happening is annoying enough</comment></comment>


The Future of Twitter's Platform Is All in the Cards - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20120801/the-future-of-twitters-platform-is-all-in-the-cards/

<comment><USER2> Bummer. Visual consistency is inherently anti-Web, in that it can't be reconciled with users choosing tools that reuse content as they wish, and we didn't really need another single-use-case marketing channel.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. If this is true, I think it'll rally support among developers behind app.net in a way nothing else could.</comment>


Show HN: Weather a Chrome Extension - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/weather/iolcbmjhmpdheggkocibajddahbeiglb

<comment><USER2> I donated and got the Pro version. But upon removing and reinstalling it, it seems to have forgotten that I have the Pro version. It's back to the free version now.

How do I put in my email address so that I can reactivate Pro features?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More info found here: [http://timleland.com/weather-chrome- extension/](http://timleland.com/weather-chrome-extension/)</comment>


How to do research as an Engineer? - <AUTHOR> I am a Data Science Engineer and I work in a big corporate. I have been contemplating to do phD. But first, I want to get some research experience.
How does one do research in a lab with a full time job? Specifically, I want to know if people approach the professors of these labs to work on these projects? I am not able to think of a good way to do so with my main goal being to get some research experience.. thank you! <comment><USER2> Hi there, my approach here will be reverse engineering. Look for the most interesting papers in the area do you want to gain experience. Try to reproduce the experiments in details, document your results and even try to make new experiments to see if you find something new. Ask questions to the authors about your problems. I'm sure that making this in your after ours time, you will gain a good intuition of what research means and you will have some learning lessons to share with others.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the reply @jsolano. I have started reading papers. I understand the value of what you are saying. thanks.</comment></comment>


SU - Option pools and founder % on Flickr  - <AUTHOR> http://www.flickr.com/photos/timferriss/3974513893/ <comment><USER2> Investors already know this. Venture capital will always call for the creation of an option pool, and the option pool is always dilutive to the pre-money (founders) rather than the post money. That is, if they are creating an option pool that's going to be 10% of the fully-diluted capital stock, and they buy 30% of the company (on a fully-diluted basis), they will get 30% and founders will get 60%. That's just the way things work.

</comment><comment><USER3> useful bit of math</comment>