Fired - <AUTHOR> http://zachholman.com/posts/fired/ <comment><USER2> There are people who were at OpenDNS in the early days who were incredible, and as we grew, became less and less incredible, largely because the things that made them incredible actually started to be really frustrating as the company grew and they didn't want to change those things. So they had to leave. Usually it was a series of conversations about how the person, their peers, and the company were all unhappy, and why should we perpetuate the pain. We'd do our best to have them leave in a way that made them feel dignified and like they controlled their destiny, and but once in a while, there wasn't a meeting of the minds and we had to say "well, it's not gonna be fixed and it's time to go do something else." Even in those cases, I always thought so highly of the work I did with those people over the long haul, even if it was painful at the end.

The point being, if I started a new company tomorrow, I would, without a doubt, go and try to hire some of those same people to help me start it. And maybe now, as a more capable manager than I was then, maybe some would make it longer, or maybe some would realize as the company goes from 10 to 100, that they are just much more satisfied at really early stages. Maybe we'd even define their comp and equity to reflect the fact that they might not be on board for the long haul, but might be key for the early innings.

The same thing is true for hiring bigger company people too early... without structure and process, some folks go crazy too and have to leave. You need the right people at the right time. This is hard to do. I messed up a bunch of times. Some people grow with the company through stages, and some don't. I think it's a responsibility of the company to help people grow if they want, or to end the misery and let them go back to what they love if they don't want to change.

Finally -- For what it's worth, people are fired all the time ( as I have been ) for all kinds of reasons, and so it's not a reason not to hire someone. Professional hiring managers know this.

<comment><USER3> In his classic book _Accidental Empires_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Accidental- Empires-Silicon-Millions-Co...](http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Empires- Silicon-Millions-Competition/dp/0887308554)), Robert X. Cringely wrote that if you think of a market as an invasion beach you can think of three kinds of employees at tech companies: commandos, infantry, and police.

 _Commandos_ are people who love challenges and hate structure. They'll happily take on missions that other people think are crazy or impossible, because doing things other people think are crazy or impossible is what turns them on. They get you your critical early beachhead by swimming in at midnight with a knife in their teeth and slitting throats till morning.

 _Infantry_ are what most people are. Most people are not Rambo; crazy suicide missions don't turn them on. But at this point you have your foothold on the beach, so suicide missions are few; what you need now is lots of people to take that foothold and widen it into a big enough space to sustain yourself on indefinitely. This work is kind of a grind, so it doesn't appeal to the commandos, who start falling away looking for a new beach to storm. But it's critical for turning the company from a proof-of-concept into a real, going concern.

Eventually the fight for the beach ends, and the battle moves inland. But you still need to have some people there to maintain order, which is where the _police_ come in. Police are even more risk-averse than infantry; they're caretakers who see their job less as expanding the market the commandos and infantry have won then as making sure it doesn't fall apart. Commandos and infantry fight to win; police fight to _not lose._

All of these personality types are important at varying stages in a company's life, he writes, but the big challenge is making sure you have the right ones at the right stages, and that you manage the transitions between those stages well. A mostly-commandos startup that takes off but tries to still keep itself mostly commandos will choke on its own success. A larger company that still has growth opportunities but phases out its infantry in favor of police too early will miss those opportunities and get ground down by more aggressive competitors. A company that's grown as much as it can grow but resists bringing on police will run itself down launching futile new products that the market isn't asking for. Etc.

<comment><USER4> I feel like this story ignores something important, something about the market being the same in spite of changes in the company.

<comment><USER5> Off the cuff, doesn't a company being in a market change the market? Especially if they're doing well, i.e. Apple changed the smartphone market...

<comment><USER6> Just because you changed the market doesn't mean you'll stay in the market forever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been fired three times.

The first time was early in my career. A site manager decided to impose working hours that (a) were in opposition to how I was recruited and (b) not what the client wanted, but (c) didn't matter anyway because the site manager had the power to do that. This was no great loss. I was better off out of there than working under those circumstances. I had a new job a month later paying 50% more.‡

The second time was a few years ago. Another employee screwed over the entire team. He did something really stupid that caused him to be fired, the executive sponsor to be fired, and then a week later, me to be fired—just three weeks after I had started. Again, this was no great loss, but the company handled the whole situation very badly (they were one of two options I had when being recruited; they won, but they treated me like crap when I was fired). I was far better of out of there because it turned out that the management team without that executive sponsor was pretty stupid when it came to technology.

The third time was last fall. A new head of engineering had come in and he decided that (a) he was the only person who could be bombastic about technology opinions, (b) he didn't like my technology opinions and (c) he didn't like me. I wasn't better off out of there—this was one of the best teams I had ever worked with. I was better off not working for him, for sure. In the end, what he did was truly stupid: he isn't there anymore and neither are the three other senior software engineers that were there when I was there. Those departures probably wouldn't have happened if he hadn't done that.•

At the same time, I had a job doing something more clearly two months later. Less pay, but much more opportunity to learn, grown, and shape a team the way that I want to shape the team.

Being fired hurts. Each of those times was depressing, because either I had just wound down a job search and didn't want to spin it up again or I wasn't ready for a job search. It sounds like Zach is doing the right thing—he's got the tools and a bit of time to pull himself together, and he's figuring out what he wants to do with the next phase of his career. Best of luck.

‡ More importantly, during that job search, I came to Canada the first time and met the woman who encouraged me to immigrate to Canada and whom I would eventually marry.

• This last job search was interesting because the middle one was so short that it could clearly be seen as Not My Fault. This one…I had to address why I was no longer at the company clearly, directly, and without evasion or disparagement. I handled it very well, I think. I also figured out that I didn't want to just be the "seniormost" person; I wanted to be the acknowledged team lead/dev manager. That changed the job search substantially.

<comment><USER8> _This one…I had to address why I was no longer at the company clearly, directly, and without evasion or disparagement. I handled it very well, I think._

Can you elaborate on this a bit? I could sometimes use some lessons in diplomacy...

<comment><USER7> Sure. I'm only able to answer in the case where you've been fired without cause. Depending on the "cause", it may be easy to apply these rules, too—but if you have been dismissed because of something that you did that put the company in a bad legal situation (for example), there won't be much help with this. The fundamental rule of interviewing is not to lie. You don't have to tell _all_ of the truth about getting fired (nor should you—more in a moment), but you shouldn't hide anything major. Lying—even by omission—will often lose you the job.

The most common way I was asked this was "why did you move on from COMPANY?" Of course, the truth is that you didn't move on. Someone else decided to move you on. Say that, without rancor. In my case, it was easy. I usually said something like "I didn't really choose to move on; COMPANY decided to let me go." Let's be clear: you cannot avoid saying this in some form.

You'll probably be asked why, and there are a couple of choices here. Most companies—especially startups—want to avoid any legal entanglement and so will give you the "changing needs of the business" line. It may even be true, but depending on the quality of your interviewer, that may not be sufficient and you may be asked to speculate on why you were let go. It's a dangerous line of questioning, because it can sound like an opportunity to be bitter about being let go and letting that bitterness show. Avoid the temptation.

In my case, I generally followed on with something like: "The official reason was because of the changing needs of the business. I personally think that it was because the new MANAGER and I disagreed on the way that a development team should work." This was _perfect_ for me, because I could expand on my thoughts about how a development team should work and how an extremely senior member of that team (if not the team lead/development manager) should interact with the more junior members of the team.

Depending on the nature of the discussion that I was having, I might be asked a bit more about the situation. In my case, I was able to express my regret for not being with one of the best teams that I had ever worked with and I was able to get into just how differently the MANAGER wanted to run development and how much that showed he didn't understand the high-performing team.

In that discussion, I never named names and I also expressed some level of uncertainty as to how much my own style could have affected how MANAGER and I interacted leading to my untimely departure. This was important because it helped the interviewer realize that I don't think myself infallible.

If you have friends from the old job, talk with them to exhaust your bitterness over the departure. Work with people on how you can figure out how to say you regret having been let go because of the lost opportunities, but how you're moving forward and learning from the experience. Me, I learned that I absolutely don't want to work for that type of MANAGER ever again and want to make sure that I never turn into that type of manager as I get back into running a team. So far, I'm succeeding.

Note: I have also been laid off once due to a cash crunch—which I didn't include on my original post. It's just as much of a gut punch, but I was able to leave that place on good terms, and _much_ easier to explain. People just nod their heads and go "ah".

<comment><USER9> This is really on-point. You echo a lot of how I think about interviewing: always tell the truth, but highlight pieces of the truth to craft the narrative you want. Be fallible. Don't speculate, and pay close attention to whether a line of discussion is fact-based or speculative. Don't disparage your previous (or current) employer.

Your comment is the sort of nuanced experience that makes reading through this thread worth the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have often said that companies rarely take it personally when you decide to leave them, so don't take it personally when they decide to leave you. Easy to say and hard to do, like a lot of things in life.

Mostly it is the illusion of control, you don't have it, you only have choices you can make in the face of unfolding events. At Zach points out, companies change as they grow, they are some weird strange attractor function that emerges from the collective personality of everyone working there. When I joined Sun for example it was the coolest place I could ever imagine being, when I left it was a enterprise focused sales engine. Same company but different places.

I will say though that when I meet someone who has been fired or "let go" repeatedly from job after job, then it is a different situation entirely. Something I doubt Zach will experience.

<comment><USER11> >>I have often said that companies rarely take it personally when you decide to leave them, so don't take it personally when they decide to leave you. Easy to say and hard to do, like a lot of things in life.

People take getting fired personally because, at least in America, a person's job is a huge part of not just their self-identity, but also their social image. So when they lose that job, it's like they lose a part of themselves.

<comment><USER10>
       > at least in America, a person's job is a huge part of
       > not just their self-identity, but also their
       > social image.

I agree with this statement, and I believe it to be wrong. Not incorrect, which would say that I thought it was false, but wrong in that it does people a disservice to themselves when they construct their self-identity in this way.

My wife is a software engineering manager, my wife is a home maker. Both true (not simultaneously) and both interpreted wildly differently externally. We were fortunate that when we had kids, either one of us could choose to stay home while the other continued to work, she opted to be that person. And she took some external heat for it from her peers, but it wasn't part of her self- identity. Looking back on that choice, pretty much everyone who knew us then and now understands that it was a better choice than that of continuing to work, however they are split nearly evenly on whether or not I could have done as well being the primary interface to the kids during their most formative years :-).

It sounded from reading Zach's essay that he didn't know if he should take it personally or not, but came around to realizing that he should not. That is a good thing and it will serve him well going forward. I think that is a great message. I hope that others reading it can avoid feeling like they lost a part of themselves when they are fired, and instead come to understand that they are all still there, just as they were before they were fired.

<comment><USER11> I agree that it is wrong for people to construct their self-identity based on their job. Unfortunately though, that's what society teaches us: that one must work to _earn_ their living, and if they are unemployed then there is something wrong with them.

Still, there's a big difference between voluntary and involuntary unemployment. Your wife's situation was the former: she quit her job voluntarily, _and_ she had you (versus, e.g. the government) to lean on financially. Furthermore, she didn't have to quit. She had the power to choose, and she chose being a home-maker. Whatever external heat she got from her peers probably paled in comparison to the stigma she would have faced if she were fired instead. And she would probably have felt differently about herself as well, at least for a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If nothing else, I'm thankful to Zach for a lot of the guidance he's provided on his blog over the years. When we did a "field trip" to Github thanks to Scott, I shared Zach's quote with the engineers here:

"We're currently at 35 employees and growing, and this approach still works great. But managers love to assign hours for a reason: it gives them the illusion that hours can measure performance. If you don't go hard on hours, you do have to look at different metrics. How good is their code? Are they fixing bugs? Are they involved in work, or is the greater flexibility not motivating them? It's difficult to make these qualitative judgements, but they're still going to be more valuable than "did this guy put in his ten hours of work today". Because as soon as you make it about hours, their job becomes less about code and more about hours."

4 years ago a lot of us had just come to Kiva from corporate gigs and such and were building a culture of meritocracy rather than bureaucracy and even though this advice seems obvious now, they were truly inspiring words at the time. Thanks Zach for all the writing!

<comment><USER13> How is Kiva after the Amazon acquisition?

<comment><USER14> Different Kiva, [http://www.kiva.org](http://www.kiva.org) :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Re: Zach's COBRA question.

For those who don't know, COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) is a law passed in 1985 [1] that compels companies to offer "continuing health insurance" to employees that leave the company for any reason other than "gross misconduct".

Basically it means that you can pay the company directly for your employer's health plan for a period of time, typically 18 months. The out-of-pocket will be more expensive, because your employer probably covered some of the premium cost. However, the premium as a whole is often cheaper than "individual coverage", since the company negotiates lower premiums with the insurance company.

The company will typically mail you the form to fill out. It's pretty short, basically just a "opt-in" box to continue getting health insurance through the company's plan.

One important detail: depending on your employer, health coverage probably ends on the last day of employment or the immediate end of the next month. However if something happens between you leaving and you filling out the form, COBRA still covers you because the law states that as long as you sign up within 60 days, it's "retroactive back to the event", the event being you leaving [2]. This covers the case of a catastrophe happening in the gap, e.g., getting hit by a car between the event and you mailing in the form.

Caveat: IANAL, so always check with a legal professional when evaluating these options. But COBRA is generally a useful thing and I typically recommend people take it unless they have another gig lined up already.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Rec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1985)

[2] [http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer- cobra.html](http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html)

<comment><USER16> Just to clarify.... it's retroactive for 60 days. That means you don't _really_ have to do anything for the first 45-ish, and if you don't need insurance in that time, and you get a new job, you're done.

If you do need insurance (break a leg or something), then you can apply then, and it'll take effect retroactively to your departure date.

If you get to 45-ish days and still don't have a new job that'll start before the 60 day mark, you'll need to sign up, or you risk getting hurt after the 60 day mark, when you then can't get insurance, and you'll be SOL.

I am not a lawyer, I've just been between jobs many times in my career :)

<comment><USER17> Hopefully on day 45 you don't end up in a coma for the next 16 days.

Don't mess with your health insurance.

<comment><USER18> It's posts like these that make me thankful to be in a country with a free health care system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Human nature is really amazing. After the reading the first 4 paragraph I saw his openness and honesty. I felt compassion and trust. And I was already thinking to myself "Zach really looks like a cool guy; if he is skilled I would probably hire him", without attaching any significance whatsoever to the fact he was fired. If you are reading this, Zach, continue to be open, honest, accept your mistakes, show you do learn from them to continuously become a better person, and you will have a good life :)

<comment><USER20> I agree. I felt the exact same way. Also Zach somehow sounds extremely professional and personal at the same time too. Got to say I'm impressed, and I too know the pain of getting laid off.Reading this article makes me feel alot better about the shame and guilt I felt from being fired.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Incompetent management is a plague on the industry. And the cause of it is that programmers are relatively low status.

In so many businesses, there are "business guys" who end up managing the engineering staff-- at one level or another, but too often it's the direct manager role--and these business guys are incompetent at engineering.

When you don't know whether a direct report is doing good or not because you don't understand what their doing, by definition you cannot manage them. What are you going to do? Listen to the other programmers opinion of their code? It immediately becomes political.

The real tragedy is, learning business is not hard. Any programmer can do it. Biz guys can't learn programming-- despite all the "everyone should be a programmer" initiatives-- even easier is managing development teams. When you've got 10 years experience as a senior engineer, you should be promoted, and working on becoming an engineering manager.

Engineering managers can develop code. Right now this role is called "lead engineer" but they have no people management responsibilities.

This is something we, as engineers need to change.

So long as the "people managers" are biz guys who don't understand engineering (and naturally are often hostile to it) good engineers are going to get fired, and our entire profession will continue to slip lower and lower in status.

<comment><USER22> When you interview ask how many people with MBAs and no programming experience you'll be working under.

That is a good heuristic for future pain and frustration.

Managers who are good engineers don't always manage well. Managers who have never been engineers are usually worse.

> When you don't know whether a direct report is doing good or not because you > don't understand what their doing, by definition you cannot manage them

Especially middle managers, if they are not the owner and have their own managers on top of them, who also don't know how engineering works, there will be trouble. Because they are stuck in the middle. They have to please the ones on the top, without understanding how the programming actually works. So they'll make promises then turn around to you and tell you to work 70 hour weeks.

> So long as the "people managers" are biz guys who don't understand > engineering

It is hard. The more time they spend managing and coordinating the less time they spend writing code. The less time they spend writing code the further they move from understanding what is involved. They just forget, or practices and tools change.

Besides leadership is the key. That is as much learned as it is just a personality trait. It ties into how they relate socially to others, how they solve social and political problems. It requires empathy, but also harshness and coldness at times. I can be learned by I wouldn't discount it too trivial.

<comment><USER23> > When you interview ask how many people with MBAs and no programming > experience you'll be working under.

If someone asked that, I would probably consider that a red flag, that they are mistrustful of "business types" and probably difficult to work with.

<comment><USER22> There are other less direct ways to pose the question.

<comment><USER24> Why even ask it. My method is find the org chart depth with log_1.5(company size). Then divide that number by 1/2 execs, 1/2 managers. Guess the roles then go look at random people on linked-in. You can get a good feel for how the company is internally based on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Zach was a quite visible ambassador for GH, an excellent speaker and spreader of GH love and lore. Would love to hear the story behind this.

<comment><USER26> For me, he was the face of GH.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> ""How Github Uses Github To Fire A Github Employee" deck coming soon

</comment><comment><USER28> > Unless you're embezzling money or using the interns as drug mules or > something.

Let's say that Holman did something not so hyperbolically terrible as these silly examples, but still terrible enough to reflect on his character for some people but not others (as in, the reason is controversial), and that's what got him fired (this is for arguments sake; I have no idea who he is or why he got fired). This sentence would then be a very important one to him in this article.

But, the sentence is embedded in the very abstract essay, which is of course a good essay, albeit not particularly novel in its ideas ("people get dealt bad hands or make mistakes and we have social mores that prevent us from rigorously considering this" what else is new?). So we get a sort of intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from politicians: deep philosophical musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the-rug of the actual issue. Or it could just be a philosophical essay. I don't know what it is, but I know what it sounds like.

<comment><USER29> Can we just stop speculating about this? He didn't come out and tell us, meaning anyone that isn't close to him will never find out. This over- analyzing of the reason (wasn't even an important point in the article) is just off-topic and more importantly, completely without evidence....

(Its not just you, but everyone is trying to play internet detective. Just stop. We don't need to dig into this guy's work life....)

<comment><USER28> My comment explicitly didn't speculate on any particular reason, it pointed to language that could easily be politician-grade rhetorical defense. Did you read my whole comment?

People can speculate about the reasons if they can point to relevant historical record. Why not? This man isn't sacred, is he?

<comment><USER29> >So we get a sort of intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from politicians: deep philosophical musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the- rug of the actual issue.

You are speculating here that he is pushing the issue under the rug. You also speculated that the reason he was fired was somehow related to the humorous reasons he gave. I think its a bit much....

<comment><USER28> For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I don't know, but he _in fact_ could be, and if he were, a lot of people wouldn't catch it unless it was pointed out.

I did no such thing as the second thing you're saying I did.

<comment><USER18> _speculation_ : the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

You wrote:

 _For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I don 't know, but he in fact could be, and if he were, a lot of people wouldn't catch it unless it was pointed out._

You have a theory that he added a paragraph about embezzlement that might be a rhetorical defence, but you have no firm evidence. You're speculating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is probably a stupid question, but could someone explain what it means to be fired in the USA?

Here in the UK (especially after you've been employed for over two years and/or you're off "probation") it tends to be the last step in a long process of verbal then written warnings where you're repeatedly doing things you're getting told off for. Relatively few things are actually "bad" enough to get you instantly dismissed on the spot (theft and the woolly term "gross misconduct" jump to mind, but even then there were multiple meetings, investigations and very specific charges).

In the UK if you were fired (rather than being made redundant or being given the chance to quit) it tends to mean that the blame is on you, to the point where the company would be willing to prove this with evidence at a tribunal (-especially if it's a medium to large company).

From what I'm reading, in the US it seems to be a case that you could loose your job, with no notice at any time for any reason?

<comment><USER31> > From what I'm reading, in the US it seems to be a case that you could loose > your job, with no notice at any time for any reason?

Yes, exactly.

In many states, US employers can terminate an employee at any time, for (almost) any reason, or for no reason at all. It's often called "At-will employment" \- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At- will_employment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)

Note that while it technically works both ways, realistically it only works to the employers benefit. The employer is allowed to fire any employee at any time, for no reason, with no recourse.

But it's considered highly inappropriate for an employee to quit without offering an employer at least two weeks notice (unless the employer has committed some sort of major misconduct, committed a crime, ceased payroll, etc).

<comment><USER32> > Note that while it technically works both ways, realistically it only works > to the employers benefit. The employer is allowed to fire any employee at > any time, for no reason, with no recourse.

I don't agree at all. In this market it benefits technology workers to be at- will. You can get a great job offer and literally leave your job the next day. This drives salaries up overall and means companies need to work harder to keep people.

Compare that to the UK, where it's standard practice for a senior dev to be stuck with a 3 month notice period. I had a hell of a time getting out of a bad situation when I first moved here as a result.

<comment><USER33> > You can get a great job offer and literally leave your job the next day

Except who would hire someone like that?

<comment><USER33> if someone reads my post, that got heavily downvoted, I'm curious as why? I mean, if I was an employer and I could hire someone who quit his last job after a day just because he could, I wouldn't want to hire him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I say Congratulations!

5 years is long enough as a employee at any tech company that isn't your own (or that you have serious upside in).

Take what've you learned and forge you're own path.

A path with control.

Yes control...

If you're employed by a company you have zero control (though, good managers work hard to make you feel exactly the opposite) and you can be fired/laid off/let go at any moment, without notice - job security is laughable.

Congratulations, now forge ahead with control!

<comment><USER35> I was recently re-reading Clarke's Rendevous with Rama on an airplane and hit this quote: "Myron, like countless NCO's before him, had discovered the ideal compromise between power and responsibility."

I am a fan of this balance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> A manager I once worked under told me something. He said, "There should never be any surprises." He meant this for reviews, firings, etc. There should always be an open line of communication and as a manager, if you're doing it right, every person who works under you should know where they stand at all times. They should never have any question or doubt about what's on their review. Period.

Come to think of it, he's one of only a couple of managers I've ever worked for. The rest have been merely bosses.

If you're in management and you can't say this about the relationship you have with your subordinates, you're not doing your job and you should be the one getting fired.

</comment><comment><USER37> I figured out on a Friday that I was getting laid off/fired/downsized on Monday.

Over the weekend I decided I would act like a zen master. I walked in like I was getting a promotion, acted gracious the entire time, thanked the people and let them know I was sorry they had to do this and then walked out like I just got promoted.

I actually talked to the HR lady at a later day and she confided how the director and her were both impressed with how I handled it.

Since you can't change the outcome at that point anyways, I think it's best to try to go out as a 100% class act.

<comment><USER38> Really? Might also say, "I have no spine"... There's a tricky line to walk between two different kinds of cringe--the kind that happens when someone sees you let someone walk all over you, and the kind that happens when you freak out and air your grievances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Zach has been an articulate and charismatic voice on a set of nouveau working styles and policies, such as remote work, unlimited vacation and a very high degree of employee self-organization.

Without violating anyone's privacy, if that's possible, I would like to know whether these contributed to his firing.

I ask simply because I'd like to better understand whether this is a siren song for startups that doesn't scale well. Would he have benefited from more structure, a performance plan, etc.? Does this degree of freedom lead to chaos and arbitrary decisionmaking as a company scales?

Hope he writes more about it.

</comment><comment><USER40> Engineers leaving, being fired or just being time, can happen to early engineers that made the company great as it changes. Changes like this are usually around growing pains and when power is transferred from engineers to the money/business or growth from small to medium or medium to large.

Companies and developers evolve, sometimes they aren't as nice a fit after they do. Companies always run off good processes, but when you start hearing about new or needing changes to 'processes' driven by new VPs or Directors, usually that ocean is red and you need to move to blue seas and oceans again.

Zach is probably a startup, product and research and development type of developer. He should stay at smaller companies or start up his own, I am sure he could get funding quickly. I'd even be for an additional github competitor though that could be un-interesting after this for him.

</comment><comment><USER41> Worth remembering that for the most time in human history, no one was ever "fired" in the sense that happens today. You worked on a farm all your life, or possibly would have a trade, and that was that. So it's a new concept and we haven't fully come to terms with that.

If the economic system keeps requiring people to switch jobs, then society must be more accepting: Employers need to be less weird about it, employees less devastated when it happens, everything smoothened out by a few weeks or months of unemployment benefits if necessary.

</comment><comment><USER42> Wasn't this guy called out by Julie Ann Horvath, the one who complained about harassment at Github? Guess this has nothing to do with that?

</comment><comment><USER43> You get these feelings even when you are not fired and going thru a bad period in your job etc. Loved that he is very articulated and honest, it makes for a nice piece to read and think again and again.

I'm sure he will get nicer gigs in the futures and wish the best of luck.

I just wonder - how do you get fired from a no-manager company ? A robot ? [http://www.fastcolabs.com/3020181/open-company/inside- github...](http://www.fastcolabs.com/3020181/open-company/inside-githubs- super-lean-management-strategy-and-how-it-drives-innovation)

<comment><USER44> In a no-manager organization, usually there is a "council" or "committee" and then there's everyone else. It may not be formally defined or have a name, but there always is one.

Nearly every company out there has some kind of separation and hierarchy of leadership, even if there are only 2 tiers total.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> According to Zach, Github doesn't have managers. So if there are no managers, then who fired him? Or can anyone just fire anyone else? Maybe Zach could just hire himself back.

<comment><USER46> I mean yeah, he probably fired himself too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Zach's posts and presentation/explanation style added a lot of value to Github. In reading the blog post linked in this story, I realize that I hadn't seen as much of that lately coming from Github.

I'm sure Zach will go on to add significant value elsewhere.

And as others in the thread have mentioned, what makes you a great early employee can sometimes not make you a great bureaucrat as the company grows. Hopefully his options are vested and he's able to have some financial upside in the future.

</comment><comment><USER48> When I'm interviewing people and find out they were fired from a previous job, I always talk to them about it. If they're really evasive about it, _only then_ do I red flag it. If they've come to terms with it and can clearly articulate what happened, even if it was their fault, I just count it as experience and don't think much more of it.

On the flip side, unless somebody is really fucking things up, I almost always offer people a way to gracefully resign and keep that stigma off their work history.

I've worked in places that also played the "we're not happy with you but we're not going to have a grown-up adult conversation with you". Instead of just firing somebody or asking them to resign, they'll start cutting pay or moving people around offices, taking work or staff away from them and isolating them so they decide to quit on their own. Don't do this. There's lots of reasons why not to, but the ultimate one is that it prolongs the inevitable, and while you're playing this game _everybody_ around that person ends up in a state of perpetual confusion and rumors start flying around like crazy.

As an employee, I also try to pay attention to my impact on the company and evaluate myself. If I'm not living up to my own standards, I'll get rid of myself and find someplace else to work. Quitting is not always about your employer providing a lousy place to work or career progression, if it's just not working for you and you aren't doing your best, you might be the cause of your own leaving.

</comment><comment><USER49> > Part of the problem with not admitting publicly that you were fired is that > people inevitably assume you're moving onto something bigger and better

I thought the issue with admitting it was that people would now question your reliability as an honest contributor to future workplaces.

</comment><comment><USER50> Why was he fired?

<comment><USER51> And that's the part of being fired you usually don't discuss publicly. It always makes somebody look bad and nobody wants to burn bridges

<comment><USER21> But part of the problem is that in a meritocracy you need people to know who the bad actors are. It seems pretty obvious from outside Github that something has gone rotten in the company over the past couple of years, and the is the latest of the smells.

Now any one of us could end up hiring that rotten apple from github in the future, if we don't know who it is.

Of course you don't want to slander or libel people, but giving them the cover of complete anonymity is not good.

<comment><USER52> GitHub is _very explicitly_ no longer a meritocracy: [http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches- meritocra...](http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-meritocracy- rug-2014-1)

And per [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158997](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158997) the same Julie Ann Horvath was both his ex and wanted him fired.

<comment><USER53> Github has _acknowledged_ that unconscious biases make it nearly impossible to have a true, pure meritocracy. It's a bit like communism - the ideal is wonderful, the actual implementation problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Pretty smart for a guy with a large following to use it to let it be known that he was fired for random fluctuations of the universe and it had nothing to do with his performance.

</comment><comment><USER55> I feel weird parallels between the job market and the dating scene recently. Nobody is good enough, you can be tossed out at any point for not being an absolute perfect match, and everybody is complaining about how impossible it is to find love/talent.

</comment><comment><USER56> FWIW I was let go many years ago. When I was interviewing for the next job, the hiring manager asked what happened at the last job.

Before I could share the story, he interrupted me & said."its ok. sometimes life throws curveballs at you. don't worry"

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm not sure I'd be so sanguine about things. If you get fired, unless you could not stand management or the environment, you should feel upset. Zach apparently feels okay because the company did it classily. No, dont do that. Get angry, it is their fault. When you hire someone you should not think of people as disposable commodities. No, you owe them recognition and respect, the dame with the employee, but to a lesser degree because the employee does not have leverage. As an employer you have leverage so you should acknowledge that power imbalance and act accordingly.

It's not like github needs to retrench and is having financial difficulties, nope. They simply fired someone who gave them five years because they weren't feeling it anymore. That's not classy. It's less than heartless, they obviously don't see employees as people they need to nurture and develop. They are just a temporary tool they will dispose when they need to.

Sure, this is prevalent, by things don't have to be this way. They should invest themselves in employees as much as employees invest themselves in the company.

Most of all, show your humanity and do get upset with these kinds of no fault firings. It's not just yeah, well. Not with a company already that size.

This attitude resembles a bit the show trials of the old user. Yes, comrade, I was bad, please punish me, I deserve it.

<comment><USER58> Do you have more of the story than appears in this article because otherwise it seems like you are jumping to a lot of conclusions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Wow, I can't believe the cavalier attitude to getting fired most of you have. If an employer has decided to fire you, then you've not only failed at your job, you've failed as a human being. Perhaps it's due to where in the US I live, but getting fired is not just separating from your job, it's a reason for your spouse to divorce you, and an acceptable reason for your bank/landlord to break the lease and kick you out of your home. If you get canned, your life is over.

This is the power employers wield over their employees, and they're right to do it. The boss is giving you their hard-earned money to provide a product, and if you don't deliver you're lower than trash. If at any point you lay your head back you should all but feel a .45 pressed against the back of your skull. No matter how valuable you think you are to your employer, they have earned the right to end your life (in a figurative sense) if you displease them, or they find someone better than you.

I think that's why we have such a good economy in the US, is employees have a healthy fear of their bosses. If anything, getting fired should be even worse than it already is. Why should workers get to underperform without more serious consequences?

<comment><USER60> I only count one question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I come from Europe, where "getting fired" seems to have a slightly different weight for people, and I really need to ask this. Please assume I'm a total ignorant in this regard, and explain this to me like you would to a young teen.

Why getting fired is seen as so bad?

What's the difference in your view (in terms of perception) between being fired and being laid off?

How can a company know that someone has been fired from the previous company?

<comment><USER62> I think the way the terms are used is that laid off means the company no longer needs anyone in your position, while fired means they still need someone to do your job, but it's no longer you. The implications of this are clear, I think - if you're fired, it's your fault; if you're laid off, it's either the fault of your company (not enough money, perhaps) or of the market (robot does your job).

<comment><USER63> Also has implications for the social safety net in the US: if you resign or are fired, you can't collect unemployment checks; if you are laid off, you can. A lay-off also means the company can't immediately turn around and hire for that position because, supposedly, the position is not needed, or is needed but can't be funded (as you said). Companies can easily circumnavigate this by creating a new position with a slightly different title and slightly different responsibilities, then just hire for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Having been fired... three times in my life... I can say that each time was more of a personality issue than a skill or competency issue. So I never took it hard. I've gotten some people fired too... and it sucks from both sides.

I'll say that it as satisfying as it is to know you won't have to work with some asshole again, it really sucks to sit them down and tell them that today is their last day on the project / with the company. Knowing the stress they will be under if they have kids or a spouse... it sucks.

When getting fired, when firing, always important to remember that there are probably plenty of people in the organization who still would like to work with you... so badmouthing and spreading drama is always your least beneficial solution.

Just take it with dignity / try and let them go gracefully.

</comment><comment><USER65> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there is a reason that getting fired is considered bad. Its usually thought of as something you did or you have to explain it away. Either way its an extra question mark on you. The situation varies somewhat of course and there are bad bosses and other work relating things that you have little control over.

If the situation is bad but not terrible a lot of times there is a discussion and a resignation instead of a firing. While I've not been party to these discussions my understanding is that a company tell you to resign or they will fire you, that lets you go without the stigma.

Layoff is the expression used when you are let go when your services are no longer needed.

</comment><comment><USER66> There is lots of interesting information in this thread, with several references to a "Fire fast" culture becoming more common amongst tech companies.

As a UK citizen, I have to ask: Are the employment laws a lot weaker in the US? In general it would be difficult to institute such a policy over here without a half decent lawyer shredding you to pieces. [1],[2] for ref.

[1]: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/volvo- business...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/volvo- business/10953386/employment-law-sack-employee.html)

[2]:[https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/overview](https://www.gov.uk/dismiss- staff/overview)

<comment><USER67> > Are the employment laws a lot weaker in the US?

Don't know about the details of the UK specifically, but, yes, employment protection laws in the US are all-but-non-existent, with at-will employment allowing immediate termination for any but specifically-prohibited (e.g., race, sex, religious, etc., discrimination, retaliation for invoking certain other protections, etc.) reasons.

<comment><USER68> UK law for new employees is pretty weak. You are basically 'at will' for the first year (although you will be paid notice, in my case 1 week).

This is a good read: [http://www.lzwlaw.co.uk/downloads/LZW%20FACT%20SHEET%20SJ.pd...](http://www.lzwlaw.co.uk/downloads/LZW%20FACT%20SHEET%20SJ.pdf)

<comment><USER69> Huh. I didn't know this:

"So, let us assume you have passed your probationary period. Is your employment position then safe? Actually it isn't. Your employer has until the end of the first year of your employment (technically 11 months and 3 weeks) during which time they can still terminate your employment without fear of the employee making a claim for unfair dismissal. This is because employment legislation provides that you need to be employed for this period of time before you are eligible to lodge a claim."

An employee does gain some protection after passing probation - a longer notice period, usually - but it's worth knowing that passing probation isn't the be-all and end-all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Ow this hits home, my company had layoffs this week, and fortunately I wasn't on the block but many friends and co-workers were. People who should not have to be looking for work. Our company has acquired this weird Silicon Valley mentality that you should never work at a business for longer than 3-4 years.I know things can get stale after being somewhere for a while, but if you prune your employees every 5 years then you will never get any long term loyalty, or even talent that can make a differnce.

</comment><comment><USER71> How many of the 'classic' GitHub team are left there now?

Is GitHub, the product we've come to like and know so well now run by people with different views to those who started it?

<comment><USER72> What is the 'classic' GitHub team? 2/3 founders are still there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> > This isn't the case with love, to choose a cliché metaphor. If you break up > with somebody, it just wasn't meant to be is the catch-phrase used rather > than yo you must have been a shit partner to not have forced that > relationship to work out.

You'll find they say that a lot, actually. Just mostly to women.

</comment><comment><USER74> Could not find in the post why he was fired.

Form my experience, if not being part of a 10% cut 80% of the fired people deserved it and should think hard why.

Also from my experience, most people getting fired for legit reasons have not enough self introspection to see the signs and change, also mostly everyone else sees those in them.

</comment><comment><USER75> Great post, Zach. Just wanted to say back in the day when I was getting into web dev good-tuorials.com was probably one of the reasons I got hooked. I got inspiration to create stuff by learning from tutorials posted to good- tutorials and make a site like yours. Great stuff!

</comment><comment><USER76> I'm just one guy that Zach really inspired. Thanks for that talk you gave on Github. It really inspired me and made me bring what's great in Github into my work and everyday life. I really liked the part of the talk on remote teams.

</comment><comment><USER77> I've never been fired. But I've been very unhappy at a job. I left about six- months or a year before I probably would have been fired, had I stayed.

I usually try to leave a job before I'm so miserable that I stop doing work and get fired.

</comment><comment><USER78> It's hard to have a good initial reaction to someone getting fired, as it means something has been broken. But I agree with the post, a broken relationship may just happen because things change in a way we can't avoid.

</comment><comment><USER79> I hear your experience and feel like man "this guy must have gone through so much". Instead of pitying you I would say "One heck of a ride and good luck with your next".

</comment><comment><USER80> In the end, business is about people.

People will reject other people.

It should not represent your self worth, and it certainly should not represent your technical performance.

Soldier on Zach.

</comment><comment><USER81> I've ben axed twice.

Details aside, getting fired was best career move I ever made.

</comment><comment><USER82> I love your website landing

</comment><comment><USER83> Who is the dude?

</comment><comment><USER84> Back in December 2012, Julie Horvath expressed her desire to have Zach fired. I wonder if these two incidents are actually related.

      @Holman is my ex-partner. He was complicit in the actions of
      both Tom and Theresa Preston-Werner and even admitted to
      plotting with Theresa Preston-Werner to get women at the
      company fired. He should be let go from GitHub and I regret
      being kind to him in previous interviews.

[http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support- allegation...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support-allegations- about-the-toxic-cultu-1567175545)

<comment><USER85> Maybe we can keep the speculation and character smearing to another thread? I have no connection to the author, but he's written a very personal post about a subject that isn't often discussed, so I don't feel like this thread is an appropriate place to attack him.

<comment><USER86> It seemed to me the post was tiptoeing around the reason of the dismissal, and the author even alludes to the story behind it with:

 _> Seemingly everyone's got stories of being stuck under shit managers, or dealing the fallout from things out of their control._

I don't support "character smearing" or "attacking" in any way, but as a reader of the post, I would like to know more about the reasons for his firing, even in the form of less-than-reliable internet research -- as long as no attacking takes place.

<comment><USER87> One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non- disparagement agreement. Usually that agreement cuts both ways, so you're happy to sign it. You get some money to help you decide what's next, while you and your employer exit on as best terms as reasonably possible. The only thing you need to give up is venting on the Internet, which usually wouldn't work out so well for you anyway.

Naturally, I don't know what if any arrangement was made here. But that's a big part of why you hardly ever hear about why someone was fired.

<comment><USER88> > One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the > employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non- > disparagement agreement.

 _Obligatory: I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice._

Just FYI, nondisparagement agreements have fallen out of favor in recent years, as they're interpreted _very_ narrowly by courts[0]. Even if your company presents you with one (which they may not), you can usually negotiate it out pretty easily.

Especially in industries or jobs in which reputation and "social capital" are highly valued, companies are tending to leave these _out_ , because they're actually massive liabilities for both parties, and there are already enough restrictions around defamation, sharing of confidential information, etc., that it's usually not worth the risk.

I have no idea what happened in this case, but it's worth mentioning since you bring this up.

[0] As in, this blog post would almost certainly violate a standard nondisparagement agreement, even though it's relatively innocuous at first glance!

<comment><USER87> Good to know. I'm not a lawyer either. I'm just drawing from experience with companies in the Boston area. Maybe my info is just out of date or maybe it's regional. But usually your two options, in my experience, are don't sign the agreement and received no severance, or sign it without modification and soften the blow with the cash. Granted I've never seen anyone try to negotiate at that point -- most just sign the paper and leave.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Ha, that Atlassian tweet was pretty good.

<comment><USER90> For reference:

[https://twitter.com/holman/status/569957689624694784](https://twitter.com/holman/status/569957689624694784)

<comment><USER91> can you explain? why would someone not take it at face value?

<comment><USER65> Atlassian runs bitbucket a github (the company that fired him) competitor.

<comment><USER92> Yea but even then people move on to competitors all the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> It's posts like these that remind me why I quit being an employee and started my own business.

As an employee, you could be working on a project for 10 years and have it taken away in an instant.

<comment><USER72> Well customers can leave too. I'd say it's a completely different kind of freedom but you are still at the mercy of forces besides yourself.

<comment><USER93> Yes, but what are the chances that all of my customers will leave at one time?

<comment><USER72> What are the chances all your customers leave if you start doing nothing tomorrow? I'm not saying you're wrong but even owners have obligations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> Just throwing this out there: I'd pay $40 to hear the real story.

<comment><USER95> I believe it may have had something to do with a rather dramatic story about github from a while back. The last person who mentioned it in this thread got their comment killed, so I will stop here.

Well, I should add this is pure speculation, I have no actual information about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Why is this on the front page? Because he worked at GitHub? What was the point of this?

<comment><USER97> A lot of people in tech struggle with the frustration of being fired, or potentially being fired. This post helps to relieve some of the stigma associated with that, and coming from someone who very clearly worked hard at a notable company for a number of years, is also a reminder that people change, and companies change. Did you read the post? Is there anything about it that you found detestable?

<comment><USER96> I did read the post and didn't find anything detestable at all. It just didn't have much substance given that it's the top post on the front page of HN. He basically just said he got fired, and that being fired has too harsh of a stigma attached to it. Ok, I agree, but is that it? He didn't even touch on why he was fired.

If he was anonymous software engineer at <insert unknown company>, I doubt this would've gotten any attention. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but when I read this post, the first thing that popped to my head was "senior employee fired from high-profile tech company uses subliminal social media marketing to reach front page of HN and land next job." But hey, props to him, it seems to be working.

<comment><USER97> Hm. I think you are probably right that an anon random programmer wouldn't have hit the top of the front page, that's a good point, but I also think that when a well known engineer is lamenting about being fired it sends a different message than a random person. That is, being well known and successful doesn't make you immune to reality :)

I do agree, though, that he could have elaborated. Not about why he got fired, I think that's too nuanced and is not likely to really help anyone beyond satisfying base desires. What would have been helpful is the hindsight: what can YOU do today to avoid falling into this situation yourself?

I'm willing to bet that it's too recent for him to have these insights.

From my own experience, I've learned that you should prioritize who your manager is over who your company is. Managers have a great power over your advancement and success at a company, both socially and productively. They can empower you to succeed, or they can take credit for your work, while simultaneously making you look like a burden.

Finding a great manager is really hard, and I think that's at the root of why many people end up getting fired, or even end up dissatisfied in their work.

Looking back on my career, I've had many different kinds of managers, but one of my earliest ones stood out. I was 16, running a dial-up ISP and it got completely and totally hacked by an acquaintance. They didn't actually mean to cause data loss, but they did and I had to answer for it.

My manager at the time stood between myself and the owner of the company who was furious, and took the blame, then stayed with me through the night manually re-entering customer data and getting things back on line.

I've had good managers since then, but that's the exact kind of situation that people end up running into in their jobs which can change the course of their employment. You can do a lot of things to make sure you remain productive and to appear to be valuable to a company, but if your manager doesn't want you working there, they can do a lot to diminish all your contributions.

Anyway, thanks for replying, it definitely helped me understand your point of view :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> Why does everyone feel compelled to live their life in the public? Shut up and sit down! You ain't special, dear..

<comment><USER99> There are tons of positives, and tons of negatives, to opening up your story to the world. (This isn't really daily life, it's the end of a 5 year stint.) If it's not for you, fine. But that's your decision, not his. And vice versa.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wow! I've been following your blog for a while and I would never have expected someone like you to get fired. It's good that you're speaking out. I have to admit I'm really curious about the reason you got fired but I guess it's none of my business. Looking forward to see what you will do of your following months, be it getting hired or drinking whiskey all day long while next to a typewriter. Please blog about it :)

</comment><comment><USER100> How on earth would this ever benefit you? Oh by the way I got fired. I know it's taboo because well _it 's not a good thing_ but I'm gonna change that. Because it was awesome. Thank you sir may I have another?

What the..

I've been fired before. Wasn't too happy about it myself.

<comment><USER101> > _How on earth would this ever benefit you?_

Breaking taboos is a good way to get noticed. Zach getting noticed is a good way to broadcast the fact that he's available for hire. That, taken with his strong reputation in the community? I'd be shocked if he wasn't sitting on a tidy bundle of offers in the next week.

<comment><USER102> It is actually somewhat relieving that even amazing developers and creative individuals can get fired. Makes me not feel as bad about it if I ever end up in such a situation.

<comment> UK-AL The easiest way to get over it, is to accept that it is a likely possibility that happens to a lot of good people. You have a lot of options once you get fired(Employment, self-employed, education) and is opportunity to change stuff you may not of liked anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> The initial opening of the tweet really threw me off.

>The last half-decade meant everything to me. Was a hell of a gig. Thanks, GitHub.

Something about it seemed off-putting. I dunno, maybe it's because i'm not really into twitter, but it just came off, for lack of better words, fake.

However, i read the rest of the post, and it was quite good. I actually enjoyed way more than i thought i would. Which kind of begs the question of what else have i ignored/put off/dismissed from reading too much into these small droplets of text. Usually 'less is more', but i'm beginning to have my doubts.

downvotes? guess twitter is protected territory

<comment><USER104> Probably due to not being used to twitter. I'm getting into it and I almost always have to shorten my tweets. It's hard to get anything meaningful into the character limit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it bad for him to talk about this publicly and insinuate that his manager was shit and that he was fired for no good reason?

This situation reminds me a lot of the time an ex-employee of reddit complained about his firing, on reddit (!!), and was publicly called out for it by reddit's CEO at the time [1].

[1] [https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_r...](https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama/cl1ygat?context=3)

<comment><USER29> I don't think he was really insinuating that his manager was shit. I think he was simply talking about the different stories he heard. It could be just as likely that the very next thing he says "or dealing the fallout from things out of their control." or really an infinite possibilities. Just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER106> Maybe. To me, when you say "you tell your story and then they tell you their similar story about being stuck under shitty managers".

I think there's definitely a credible, though not ironclad, case to be made for insinuation.</comment></comment></comment>


Distributed: A New OS for the Digital Economy – Douglas Rushkoff – SXSW 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQKQKCe1xl0 <comment><USER2> Several people I respect highly recommended this video and immediately ordered his book. But I was bored after a few minutes and stopped watching. His site has a summary: [http://www.rushkoff.com/books/throwing-rocks-at-the- google-b...](http://www.rushkoff.com/books/throwing-rocks-at-the-google-bus/)</comment>


Ask HN: Best resources on sex education and improving sex life? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://www.reddit.com/r/sex/](https://www.reddit.com/r/sex/) as starting point.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ask your wife/husband.</comment>


Climate change made European heatwave up to 3°C hotter - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02384-z <comment><USER2> We are a frog being boiled slowly. It seems really impossible to stop right now even though we probably have the technology to do so.

<comment><USER3> What is the technology that we do have, but we refuse to use in order to solve the problem?

<comment><USER4> Nuclear power for energy.

Forestation/harvesting for carbon capture.

<comment><USER5> Forestation for the win! But apparently there are a lot of people looking into it ([http://trees.org](http://trees.org), [http://edenprojects.org](http://edenprojects.org), [https://onetreeplanted.org](https://onetreeplanted.org) \-- which even has awesome mini-crowd-funds for your company/wedding/etc: [https://www.classy.org/campaign/tree- ambassadors/c200082](https://www.classy.org/campaign/tree- ambassadors/c200082)).

How do you get large scale adoption though? Laws? Government projects? Millionaires?

<comment><USER6> Government projects, on the international scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It feels like more than 3 C. When I was a child it was hot in summer when it was between 25 en 30 C. Now it is hot in summer when it is between 35 and 40 C.

<comment><USER8> In my family we are collecting climate data since 1948 and as child i remember temperatures above 37C where extremely rare (like 3 times in 60 years). We were super excited when once the record was exceeded of a decimal point.

Now we have days with 37 and 38 C every summer, sometimes even 40 (we are in south europe).

<comment><USER9> That's a cool family project! However, assuming that you're only collecting data where e.g. you live, I think you're collecting _weather_ data, not _climate_ data. Climate refers to global averages.

This may sound like a nitpick but it's important to remember that no data from a single location can say much of anything about what the global climate is doing. It's quite possible for some places to get colder even if the climate grows warmer.

<comment><USER10> Wikipedia: " . . . long-term averages of weather are called "climate".[1][2]"

"The climate of a location is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For me, the most obvious change is the increasingly shorter and shorter skiing season.

<comment><USER12> We've experienced the opposite in the pnw. Winters are more polarized. Either they suck or they are insanely good and long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> 15 years ago i was the only one with AC in my building (20 apartments building). now only 6 apartments don't have AC (Bucharest)

<comment><USER14> Here are Bucharest temperatures since 1860, measured from the Filaret station, according to Berkeley.

[https://i.imgur.com/wolGEz3.png](https://i.imgur.com/wolGEz3.png)

So while global temperatures may have been rising, they have been flat for Bucharest.

The fact that you think it has been getting warmer for you there, however, is an interesting point about media effects and mass psychology.

EDIT: Here too, is the same data station after Berkeley's data quality process has been applied: [https://i.imgur.com/LvmbD9v.png](https://i.imgur.com/LvmbD9v.png) No comment.

<comment><USER15> What is "Berkeley's data quality process"? I've not heard of that. Thanks!

<comment><USER16> The implication is that Berkeley is "correcting" the temperature record in Bucharest to show rising temperatures over time even though the raw data don't show an overall increase. I'll let someone with more expertise comment on what the rationale behind Berkeley's process actually is.

<comment><USER14> I implied no such thing! I posted the raw data for the longest record Bucharest station that I could find, and included the adjusted data before someone could accuse me of hiding things.

Here it is on the Berkeley site. Raw data is the top graph, quality controlled (their term!) is the bottom graph.

[http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157726](http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157726)

If you want to find out their method, I'd recommend the following links:

[http://berkeleyearth.org/about-data-set/](http://berkeleyearth.org/about- data-set/)

[http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/](http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/)

And please be more careful about accusations of climate change denialism. You could get people fired with that sort of thing.

<comment><USER17> Two stations close by report an increased temperature in the past 50 years: [http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157729](http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/157729) [http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/19998](http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/19998)

In all three cases, the data in their DB ends in 2013.

<comment><USER14> Look at their longitude and latitude. Those two are on the edges of Bucharest (which is why the one that you linked was set up in the 1950s, and the other in the 1970s). The longstanding temperature station is in the center of the city.

I think that what you are most likely seeing is the urban heat island effect rather than any incorrect measurements on the part of any of these stations. Areas undergoing urban expansion get hotter as they are built up.

The 2013 cutoff may be a limitation of the Berkeley data in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This seems to be the referenced analysis:

>[https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/human- contribution-t...](https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/human-contribution- to-the-record-breaking-july-2019-heat-wave-in-western-europe/)

The researchers came to their conclusion after running a multitude of climate simulations, however, this part concerns me:

>Models that did not represent heat waves well were withdrawn from the analysis.

Serious question: is climate science immune from the statistical abuses that have recently been shown to plague other empirical and/or model based disciplines?

<comment><USER19> Not immune, but pretty reistant, yes.

The results of these models are usually compared with actual data from the real world, very much like in astronomy or geology. If a model doesn't agree with reality, it gets discarded pretty quickly.

In fact, that is what the researchers did in this case: They applied several statistical models of weather extremes to both models and real data and compared them. Every model that failed to predict the actual measured heat wave went out.

That seems like a good way of establishing a baseline, and gives high confidence in the predictive power of the remaining models.

You could argue about how the weather data was selected, and how it was compared with the models. But that is already a discussion about details of the specific study. This one is a collaboration between multiple reputable institutions, so it is pretty safe to assume sound practices.

Notably, the fact that you actually know about statistical abuse in science shows that the scientific process is working as intended: Results are public and therefore can be and are scrutinized. More important stuff also receives more scrutiny, less important stuff can go unchecked until it is cited more often.

But eventually errors will be unearthed and accounted for.

<comment><USER20> > _In fact, that is what the researchers did in this case: They applied > several statistical models of weather extremes to both models and real data > and compared them. Every model that failed to predict the actual measured > heat wave went out._

Wouldn't it be better to select the models which have had the most accurate predictions over as long a period as the required data are available? Mean squared error of temperature, or something. Promoting models primarily for their ability to predict an event that is _currently happening_ seems like a terrible idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Strange enough, in central Europe it's like having spring, the temperatures are like 20-24 degrees (Berlin, Germany area), while other neighbours are melting down

</comment><comment><USER22> Germany here. I remember the hottest summer in my hometown would exceed 40°C (up to 45°C), but now people already complain if it gets past 30°C. Not sure what to make of this. They probably got used to air conditioned offices and now feel the heat way hotter, because of the stark difference.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is getting really bad, I think we're way past the "let's just stop doing the bad thing" and into the "we need real actions to fix this thing like if it was a deadly epidemic, now"

</comment><comment><USER24> Wow... I would have expected « Nature » to know that Celcius are not degrees.

The degree symbol in the title should not be there.

<comment><USER25> You're thinking of Kelvin. Celsius does indeed require the degree symbol.</comment></comment>


For some in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, a ghost town is home - <AUTHOR> https://www.freep.com/story/news/columnists/john-carlisle/2018/02/16/upper-peninsula-ghost-town-homes/1034513001/ <comment><USER2> I used to live in Duluth, 3-4 hours west, and have explored the Keeweenaw Peninsula. I love the UP. I spent a week exploring this area... took some photos of a tiny 4 headstone cemetery in the woods by an old copper mine. Most of the UP is quite desolate, and this area, even more so since it's not on the way to anywhere.

Like everywhere up there, it would be paradise if not for the extreme winter. Houghton, just south of there at the base of the peninsula, has a tech university campus and is fairly populated.

'"There used to be nothing but whorehouses here," said the wiry 29-year-old, pointing into the woods, recounting family memories."'

Family memories?

The Porcupine Mountains Wilderness nearby is another place I'd suggest exploring.

<comment><USER3> > Family memories?

Stories he'd heard from parents and/or grandparents.

cf "institutional memory"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A related aside...

I have a desktop background photo from the very early 1900's... it's of a copper stamping mill that was not so far away from where the article is set. However, in that image there's a "ghost image" that was on the original plate that you can faintly see.

I couldn't resist and ended up finding an online source for the actual image that was ghosted onto the plate that was my background: [http://www.shorpy.com/node/11417](http://www.shorpy.com/node/11417)

And then I couldn't resist finding out if I could find that location in modern day Google Maps.... and I did! The details I posted in the shopry.com link.

It was an interesting divergence for a couple of hours and I learned a fair amount about the area the article is talking about and the town of Calumet, Michigan which the photos in question document.

Ah, the modern age...

EDIT: I see that I didn't post anything about the background image with the ghosted impression on it back then when I commented... I just found another link to that (perhaps not surprisingly from shopry.com, [http://www.shorpy.com/node/15713](http://www.shorpy.com/node/15713), though that's not where I originally found it)

<comment><USER5> There is a Woody Guthrie song about that town during a strike - "1913 Massacre".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the U.P. I have been there almost every year of my life, first from Illinois where I was raised, and now I make the trip with my kids from California. I love the forests, the lakes, and the rivers, and I try to let my kids experience that (there isn't much uncrowded freshwater in southern California). The people, being very Finnish (like half my family), are best described as stoic.

<comment><USER7> I have to say, from reading TFA, it sounds quite appealing. I'd guess good internet service is pretty uncommon in those parts, which would limit its potential as an isolated remote-work kind of place. But if you're financially independent and like solitude, sounds pretty good.

<comment><USER8> Depends on just how remote you want to be. Broadband is available in the more populated towns. When I was in Houghton, the only major service interruption I remember was from a backhoe operator digging where he shouldn't.

<comment><USER9> Most of the towns in the area have decent internet, although I remember having a lot of outages, at least a few every winter during bad storms. I'm not aware of any gigabit connections but the speeds are enough to stream movies, play games, and fiddle around online. If you go off into some of the more remote areas, like 10-30 minutes outside of a town, you're largely stuck with satellite internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I grew up in the Keweenaw, expert recreator (mountain biking, skiing, hiking), got a few degrees from Michigan Tech, and succeeded in getting a job there (it was my goal for many years). If any HM folks are ever wanting to visit, I host couch surfers. alex (at) hirzel.us

</comment><comment><USER11> > _The Keweenaw Peninsula is the upper peninsula of the Upper Peninsula. It's > the state's northernmost region..._

One minor nitpick: Isle Royale, the entirety of which is a National Park, is farther north, in Lake Superior.

</comment><comment><USER12> I went to university in the Keewenaw (Michigan Tech). It's also where I started learning how to run a company. I spent 5 years of my life there.

Happy to answer questions about anything tech related there!

<comment><USER13> What was the biggest blizzard you witnessed? I visited for a weekend and there was about 4 feet of snow in a 36 hour storm.

<comment><USER12> I was there from 2008 to 2013. This gives a fairly good break down: [https://www.mtu.edu/alumni/favorites/snowfall/](https://www.mtu.edu/alumni/favorites/snowfall/) I saw a lot of snow storms there over the years. Neat fact: The houses in the UP actually have doors that lead nowhere on higher floors in case your first floor is buried :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that NASA launched satellites from Keweenaw peninsula in the sixties.

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

Never been there but it's on my list when I get back. From what I've been told you need a 4wd vehicle as you need to fjord a stream.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is there a Wifi Hotspot there? I see people in the photo use their tablet (iPad?) to read things?

For a so-called "ghost town", that's too tech advanced :-)

<comment><USER15> > For a so-called "ghost town", that's too tech advanced :-)

Maybe they just never comment on anything! ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is it a ghost town if it's not deserted?

</comment><comment><USER9> I was born and raised in the Yoop, Lake Linden is my hometown! I've talked about it on a little on HN in the past so I'll just paste my previous comment but if anyone has any questions about the area I am happy to try and answer them.

The Yoop is a lovely area with loads of history and extremely kind people. It is also sadly filled with crushing poverty and brutal winters. I grew up in Lake Linden and one interesting location that isn't a mine is the abandoned Calumet Air Force radar station [1][2]. The copper mine in houghton is absolutely worth checking out and the tour is pretty great if you are into mining or anything historic. I've taken the tour a few times, you only get to go down a few levels due to the rest of the mine being flooded but it is still very interesting. This mine was a big one but the entire area was dedicated to copper and was extremely rich with the stuff. The mine, and others, actually closed down in 1933 due to low copper prices but reopened a couple shafts in 1937. I forget when they closed back down but I want to say it was in the mid 50s.

Michigan Tech claims that from Quincy alone, up to 756 million pounds of copper were produced from 1856 to 1925 [3]. The mine, with 90 levels, went to a final depth of 6,225 feet with a finial shaft length of 9,260 feet [4]. I'm not sure how reliable it is, I've only ever had my eyes on the Quincy Mining Company financials, but the national park services claim that over 10 billion pounds of copper were produced from the area [5].

Just this summer I was talking to an old timer who worked with the local mines pulling core samples and doing general geologic work. According to him there is still a massive amount of copper in the ground but with regulations and the completely dilapidated infrastructure, there hasn't been development for decades. With the rise in copper prices I have heard rumors of a few people buying up mineral rights in the last year or so but nothing too interesting beyond that. Personally I would love some deep pockets to come into the area to reopen the mines and revitalize the area, not sure I'll ever see that in my lifetime though.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYbO- my46I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYbO-my46I)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumet_Air_Force_Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumet_Air_Force_Station)

[3] [http://www.mg.mtu.edu/MINE_SHAFTS/shaft5zd.htm](http://www.mg.mtu.edu/MINE_SHAFTS/shaft5zd.htm)

[4] [https://www.uh.edu/engines/mineno2shaftcrosssection.jpg](https://www.uh.edu/engines/mineno2shaftcrosssection.jpg)

[5] [https://www.nps.gov/kewe/learn/historyculture/copper- mining-...](https://www.nps.gov/kewe/learn/historyculture/copper-mining- timeline-page-4.htm)</comment>


Reality of Group-Buying - <AUTHOR> http://sociallayer.tumblr.com/post/3639420091/reality-of-group-buying

<comment><USER2> I have no data to test the following hypothesis, but I suspect that a significant portion of Groupon revenue comes from deal hunters.

These are people who love to find a deal, and if they went shopping and found an item with a great price on the tag, they still wouldn't feel excited about buying it unless it were ON SALE.

If this hypothesis is true, these people go from deal to deal on groupon every week. They surf the hottest local deals, but the only company loyalty they have is to Groupon themselves.

Who know's, maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm not, local spas and restaurants will eventually wise up.

<comment><USER3> > the only company loyalty they have is to Groupon themselves.

And Living Social, and Crowd Cut, and DealPulp, and ValPak, and Eversave, and Mamapedia, etc. The people who you describe don't have any exclusive loyalty to Groupon; it's just another one of the dozen emails they get every morning with a possible deal.

The main advantage that Groupon has over these competitors is that "Groupon" has come to be genericized as a term for a group-buying deal. My wife never says, "Let's use that DealPulp I got last week." She says "I have a Groupon for 50% off, so let's go to Santorini for supper," even if it was a Living Social or Crowd Cut deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's quite a misapplication of micro theory. The supply-demand diagram doesn't apply (very well) in cases without complete information, for instance. For example, there are many customers who aren't even aware of the businesses being advertised. That's the premise of Groupon--not to get existing customers to come back more, but to get new customers who didn't even know about the businesses.

I'm not saying that this is effective--the only way to know for sure is through testing, which I'm sure Groupon can do, but I'm bothered by the author's manipulation of micro theory.

</comment><comment><USER5> This post is an econ student's way of saying:

"It's hard to grow profits by selling to cheap people."

I do think there are situations where Groupon makes sense - primarily where you have a high fixed cost (like rent), high margins on the product (say, liquor) and poor utilization. The only time that's likely is with a new business, because it's not a stable state -- either you grow out of it, or you go out of business.

The problem is that Groupon, while attracting customers, also attracts customers who are more price sensitive, less loyal and have lower price expectations for the future. That's not as good as getting the customers the hard way: finding people who value your product enough to pay the normal price, and are happy with it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hate to respond to pedantry with more pedantry, but that's a pretty questionable application of micro theory.

The main value of using Groupon is that in exchange for offering a deep discount, you get the firehose turned on your business - it's a customer acquisition tool, using equal parts advertising and pricing. Businesses wouldn't get the same demand spurt by offering discounts without using Groupon.

What the author gets right is that it's an open question as to whether merchants can convert the discount buyers into regular customers.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand they have more visibility in an other wise hidden market.

However, short term advertising and pricing only moves you on the same demand curve. Unless you end up converting those discount buyers.

I think Groupon is a great way to get your business known, just don't put your eggs in one basket is all I am saying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Groupon is primarily good for discovery, but it's up to merchants to capitalize on referrals from their Groupon customers. It works particularly well for small operators who need to put a quirky business on a map.

For example, a friend who lives in San Francisco bought a Segway tour of the city, which she would never on earth do had she not seen it on Groupon. She then asked 50 people to join her tour, and then plastered the photos all over Facebook. A lot of people now know these tours exist, and next time we have friends visiting from out of town, we'll be asking her about it. If the Segway tour operator had offered her a promo for referrals, all the more reason for us to remember the tours and book, preferably via her referral link.

I suspect the effect is similar to getting your startup covered in Techcrunch. Suddenly you get tons of pageviews and signups, but it's up to the startup to keep people coming back.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't agree, I don't see the value for businesses in a fundamental shift in the demand curve any more than 1 euro hamburgers have that goal. Getting more customers in the door is a customer acquisition tool, hopefully getting those customers to return; or even better, upselling them something. It's not part of a fundamental change in pricing strategy, it's a short-term marketing tool.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've been taking macroeconomics and one of the questions asked, "Do you think this is a good model to explain this phenomenon?"

My answer? "If a two variable equation can explain things that PhD/MBA's with 20+ years experience don't get, yes."

Economics is very valuable but, imo, mostly on a higher level.

<comment><AUTHOR> The micro graph was not designed to be an exact science to the phenomena that occurs with group-buying. It was added to give the reader a visual representation of my overall argument towards Groupon.

There are no data points, it is merely a tool to show what I was saying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Businesses should use Groupon to bundle deals, not selling single items for deep discounts. This increases a businesses' volume and transaction costs go down per sale.</comment>


Help save Lindsay Sandiford from the death penalty - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/aral/status/297108872613732352 I just realised that I should have linked the source instead of the tweet linking to the source, sorry about that.
Here's the link to the page with all the information:
http://www.indiegogo.com/save-lindsay-sandiford <comment><AUTHOR> I just realised that I should have linked the source instead of the tweet linking to the source, sorry about that.

Here's the link to the page with all the information:

<http://www.indiegogo.com/save-lindsay-sandiford></comment>


MyPark Robots Hold a Parking Space for You at the Mall - <AUTHOR> https://yellrobot.com/mypark-parking-robots/ <comment><USER2> Pull up, lift into road, park, profit.</comment>


Google woos developers by releasing cloud platform code to GitHub - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/google-woos-developers-by-releasing-cloud-platform-code-to-github-7000010190/

<comment><USER2> Smart move! This will neutralize cloudfoundry's advantage. We should see Appfog like platforms on Google cloud in future.</comment>


With no early Windows 8.1 RTM bits, what's a developer to do? - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/with-no-early-windows-8-1-rtm-bits-whats-a-developer-to-do-7000019910/

<comment><AUTHOR> My company was pissed off with these new Microsoft policies. One of our bigger customers, Trend Micro, uses our components in their Titanum Security Solution (million users audience). They found an issue in the Windows 8.1 (build 9477) but we don't have access to it as MSDN subscribers! only to the "official preview" (build 9431). We saw new changes in the UIRibbon.dll that triggered the bug in our software.

</comment><comment><USER2> You have to have a Technet (soon to be removed) or MSDN subscription to get early access to Windows 8.1 RTM ISOs.

Germany has banned Windows 8 and I assume that applies to 8.1 as well: [http://greatdox.com/wordpress1/2013/08/28/germany-bans- windo...](http://greatdox.com/wordpress1/2013/08/28/germany-bans- windows-8-cites-backdoors-and-security-risks/)

The future of Microsoft is sketchy now that Ballmer is retiring and Microsoft made many mistakes: [http://greatdox.com/wordpress1/2013/08/28/steve-ballmer- to-l...](http://greatdox.com/wordpress1/2013/08/28/steve-ballmer-to-leave- microsoft-microsoft-is-a-big-train-wreck/)

Your best bet is to keep developing for Windows 7 until Microsoft fixes the issues with 8.1, and it seems to be good advice. Always try to stay one version behind with Microsoft products and then only upgrade to a new Microsoft product after you know most major bugs are fixed. If not, you could be stuck with a lot of support issues and Microsoft bugs your customers complain about but you cannot fix as they are part of the operating system.

If you can make 8.1 apps, all the better for you, you should get a head start over others. But be aware that since 8.1 comes out in October a lot of your clients and customers might still be using the preview version and not have full access to your RTM version.

<comment><AUTHOR> _You have to have a Technet (soon to be removed) or MSDN subscription to get early access to Windows 8.1 RTM ISOs._

We are MSDN subscribers... I updated this fact in my comment.

Also, these top customers needs to be updated because they have million of customers that use our components.

<comment><USER2> Difficult to do that if you have the MSDN access and they don't. It would be piracy to give them access to your MSDN Windows 8.1 RTM when they only have the 8.1 Preview the public gets. Yet still they would have to wait until October to download the 8.1 update. I remember having issues with other Microsoft products like this going way back when since before the 21st century. Microsoft never learned from this and it puts software makers in a big jam before the RTM becomes public.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's the reverse: my customer started to test our components with their QA army with a Windows 8.1 version that is not available in the MSDN.

The central point of my rant is that Microsoft is harming their own customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks</comment>