To Restore Civil Society, Start with the Library - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/opinion/sunday/civil-society-library.html <comment><USER2> I can't say enough good things about public libraries. At the MIT Media Lab we started an innovation exchange with US libraries to co-develop new STEAM education programs together (tinkering with electronics, building a "food computer", using data to tell stories...). We found that libraries are wonderful collaborators. They are also one of the last places where people from all walks of life encounter each other in a friendly environment. More info about the project is at [https://PLIX.media.mit.edu](https://PLIX.media.mit.edu) (and I hope this post doesn't seem too self-promotional - I just want to share our excitement about working with public libraries).

<comment><USER3> Sigh...not a big fan of "STEAM" as opposed to "STEM". STEM exists because science, technology, engineering, and math don't get the focus they need in the standard US education system. There is also the arts of music, and drawing/painting/crafts, P.E., History, Literature that are still important, but take the focus away.

If you say...well STEM is important, but let's not forget art, pretty soon you'll say well we also need physical education as a healthy body is good too. Before long, you're back at the standard education system.

Getting back to the main subject at hand, libraries are awesome and will be even more important when Amazon forces the last brick and mortar bookstores out of existence. I've also started to see library outreach programs that teach classes on various subjects. Neil Gaiman has an essay on libraries in his book "a view from the cheap seats" that you can also see here:

[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/15/neil-gaiman- fu...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/15/neil-gaiman-future- libraries-reading-daydreaming)

As to the comment I'm responding to, you can probably mostly ignore my STEM vs STEAM argument as it is only mildly important as far as how funds are distributed. What really matters is people like you who are working to make a difference in the world and thank you for that. To think that I might get to bring my children to a library in the future that acts as a knowledge hub is pretty amazing. I've also found the librarians at my local library to be very kind & helpful people.

<comment><USER4> > STEM exists because science, technology, engineering, and math don't get the > focus they need in the standard US education system.

Pretty much every HS kid in America is required to take at least 3 full years of math and science if not 4. How exactly are they not getting the focus over art? Schools are cutting art programs left and right in order to allocate more resources toward things that get covered on standardized tests.

<comment><USER5> 3? (Kind of Sarcastic) wow!

Every single year/quarter of a person's basic education includes math and science (physics and then biology and chemistry, then a bit of cs) where I am from. Thus, worst case scenario a person has spent 9 years on that stuff (among other topics sure).

Sure I can see art does not get a lot of focus from what you are saying and I do not have experience in your system to say what the balance kept. But I can see if a school is running under budget and needs to reduce something that art/music is the first to go. Pity.

<comment><USER6> FYI HS is "high school" which is only 4 years long

<comment><USER5> I got that. Although not clear if they meant senior high school or what not.

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

It is a bit unclear to me when someone says high school in the U.S. if they imply junior or senior or none of the above.

<comment><USER7> "High school" is the universally-accepted term in the US, and means four years before university. "Junior" high school is not a universal term, though exists in some areas. "Senior high school" is a term I've never heard before, appears uncited on that wikipedia page, and were I to say it to anyone I know they would look at me funny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love the idea of libraries, but where I live most of them are almost as bad as public transportation. People fighting, being loud, people on drugs asking for money, so it's difficult to get comfortable to sit and read. Sadly you have to go to the suburbs to get a quiet library where you don't get hassled. Amazon certainly isn't the solution, but neither is having libraries be the daytime homeless shelter.

<comment><USER9> To be fair, it's not the fault of libraries if society offers no more humane options for the homeless than to hang out there... nor is it the fault of the homeless.

<comment><USER10> In the UK, problems in libraries are usually not homeless people.

<comment><USER11> Care to share what the problems with libraries in the UK are then?

<comment><USER10> People for whom manners and respect of other people are alien concepts. In the UK, their numbers are growing at an alarming rate, mainly because there is so little done to sanction such behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > [Libraries provide] welcoming public spaces for the poor, the homeless and > young people.

And isn't this precisely why normal people don't use libraries anymore? Because they've become de facto homeless shelters with unsavory guests who frequently smell awful or use computers for watching porn. I recently visited the famous Seattle public library and was shocked by the nature of the guests.

<comment><USER13> It is unfortunate that your experience was not a positive one...but i suppose this says more about how society has failed in numerous ways that some citizens are grasping at straws, and leveraging the only available institutions for them.

<comment><USER14> You can say the same thing about public transit, parks, and the sidewalk.

Does it matter? Not one bit. Once those places are allowed to become disgusting, people with a choice in the matter stop going to them.

"You'd be surprised by how many San Franciscans think that the problem with human feces or used syringes on sidewalks is the 'lack of empathy' of those who notice them. That or their 'sense of entitlement.'"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My local library has even made a tech push, not just with computers available, but also has a couple of 3D printers and offers classes on using them. Or you can bring in finished .STL files for printing, for the cost of the material used.

<comment><USER16> Is this in USA, how does state provision of such services pair with USAmerican hatred of communism? Libraries, tool-shares, hackerspaces and such seem to be the epitomy of communism.

<comment><USER17> It's the co-op model, which USA generally has no problems with as long as it's elective, e.g. you aren't forced to depend on it.

<comment><USER16> It's different to a co-op model as you don't have to individually buy in, it's provided as a function of the state, no? Are their commonly private [non-state run] libraries in USA that you can become a member of, I'd guess not, which makes your claim about election/forced dependency seem strange (in context, though it might work more generally).

<comment><USER17> Yes, it's a little bit different than a regular co-op, but:

1) it's paid for mostly by your local government, not the federal government, so there's some self-determination.

2) You can get your books there, but you don't _have_ to get your books there, and you can still have your own collection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I visit the library often. Two libraries in fact as I used to live in two counties and each had their own and now both share resources. They give me information on things I would not know because I didn't want to buy a book I was worried wasn't what I was looking for. It helped me learn about FreeBSD which helped me start a business I've been running for 15 years now along with the programming languages. Libraries helped me cook and build things for my home.

I own most of those books I borrowed from the library now and they still sit on my bookshelf next to me.

And I'm pretty darned good at all that.

</comment><comment><USER19> > Libraries don't just provide free access to books and other cultural > materials, they also offer things like companionship for older adults, de > facto child care for busy parents, language instruction for immigrants and > welcoming public spaces for the poor, the homeless and young people.

This is a description of the proper role of the church in civil society and a public library is a poor substitute.

The church ushered in life with baptism, it educated the youth, it facilitated the building of families in marriage, and comforted the grieving in death. It extolled the virtues of the fruits of the spirit in relationships: "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self- control". It sought unity in diversity ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."), and undermined social hierarchy ("You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great")

The church had problems, but it was an important component of civil society. Now having abandoned it, we have nothing to replace it with, and we're paying the price.

I understand that there are a lot of objections to religion here, and I fully expect this comment to be downvoted to oblivion, but purely from a sociological perspective, there was a lot lost in the relentless pursuit of secularism.

<comment><USER20> Churches encourage complacency (all of life is God's plan), many fought hard against abortion, contraception, and women's rights/equality, and the insular tribalism such places encourage has enabled a lot of truly ugly behavior to be covered up due to in-group loyalty (see the Catholic church's sex abuse scandal for an example). Ultimately secularization was a necessary step in the evolution of society, as it's difficult if not impossible to reconcile a techno-scientific post-industrial society with simplistic parochial ideologies.

Personally, I _wish_ I could believe in religion. I want to live in a world with a heaven and a hell and a god looking out for us, where things are logical and just and evil-doers - eventually - always suffer. I think I'd probably be a lot happier believing in that pleasant lie than I am living with the truth. But such a thing just isn't in my wiring, and I imagine many modern people share that sentiment. Hence, I suspect, all the new age woo that's basically just re-packaging Jesus in a more digestible form.

<comment><USER21> ever been to an Episcopalian service? I've been to a few dozen at a few different churches in a few different states. They are a split from Catholicism, so the rituals during service can seem familiar. However, the sermon feels like your father or grandfather (and some cases mother or grandmother) reassuring you for the week, and telling you to be your best self. It's about as liberal as mainstream Western religion gets.

<comment><USER22> Thing is, the denominations that tend to be less fire and brimstone, are also less communal. I always assumed that it comes from strength (or lack thereof) of shared convictions.

<comment><USER23> They have convictions, too. The more salient differentiator is probably extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivations, i.e. the need for a church to be a place to show off or enforce virtues

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The concept of "the library" is one that holds deep emotional attachment for many people. The nostalgia of book smells, the exhibitionism of reading "cool" physical books in public, the idea of being physically connected to "the community".

The core function of a library, storing physical books, makes little sense anymore. Digital books are far superior in cost and functionality. But those emotionally attached will claim "they're not the same".

Our province in Canada has a population of 500,000 and has over 100 libraries. Each of those libraries needs to carry multiple copies of important literature. Many of these libraries go unused. It's a big waste of money yet people can't move on because of emotional attachment and emotional reasoning.

I do believe in the reinvisioning of libraries as a more digital space, a place to work, and a place for the public to learn.

But let's stop the emotional reasoning and use pure logic. "Civil society" is more alive than ever, on the internet.

<comment><USER25> I understand the argument and I agree that digital books are the future, however, they are so inferior in discoverability that if my library ever moves all-digital I will replace it with one of my 10 local used bookstores. I need to browse books to find some I like and am not interested in letting algorithms or Internet echo chambers do so for me.

My own library also has copies of e.g. sheet music... I agree that those could be digital but it's more practical to stick a giant piece of paper on my keyboard vs a tablet (would be afraid the tablet could fall, also don't own a tablet). And the library is often one of few places these days that young children see physical books in large numbers... won't it be bad for their eyes to do all that reading digitally?

<comment><USER26> Agreed, the UX of paper is still so much better than kindle. Nicer to read, no lag, easier to organize and share, nicer taking notes in margins. I bought a kindle and went back to paper.

<comment><USER16> One of the main benefits of ebooks is cost of production, surely. There is a massive cost saving (and impact on jobs etc.) but it seems the producers have managed to keep all of that benefit to themselves?

<comment><USER27> It's more than just production, let me highlight storage and transport costs too (having just moved house with tonnes of books it's very much on my mind).

There's also longevity, which ties in with search-ability. Modern paper even under the best of conditions only has a century of shelf-life, where as digital data should persist for forever. Also as it's digital we get the benefits of flowing text, searching/indexing and easily converting to new formats and even languages - and the ability to easily update these conversions as technology progresses.

Theoretically (on paper?) digital books have all the benefits in the world. As a book lover I still can't quite get on with them in all but the trashiest of uses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I appreciate the librarians because they're one of the very few people who stand up against ubiquitous government surveillance. It's nice to have a place where I am not profiled based on what I browse.

<comment><USER29> I don't understand this comment. Are librarians politically aligned in the US? If so, why?

Also, if you are going to downvote, you might as well spend some time explaining why.

<comment><USER30> Avoiding patrons from being tracked/potentially in the future prosecuted for their reading is professional ethics for librarians, pretty much regardless of political alignment.

<comment><USER29> That's interesting and new to me, as I'm not American. Does the American government track or prosecute people for their reading habits in libraries? Is it to be expected then that librarians are aligned to the political left?

<comment><USER31> Since 2001 (at least) the law enforcement is supposed to have access to library records. The legal basis keeps changing, though.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Librarians and library scientist have talked about this for a long time. Look up "library as third place" if you want to read more (and get an insider perspective).

</comment><comment><USER33> Enough of this ideological driven media company. This company's actions do not align with "restoring civil society".

</comment><comment><USER34> We are all on the library now.</comment>


Texas Is About to Create OPEC's Worst Nightmare - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/opec-s-worst-nightmare-the-permian-is-about-to-pump-a-lot-more <comment><USER2> Texas is in a funny place. They are pumping oil like crazy, but they are building wind like crazy as well.

Look at the City of Austin and the amount of renewables year over year: [https://data.austintexas.gov/Utilities-and-City- Services/Gen...](https://data.austintexas.gov/Utilities-and-City- Services/Generation-by-Fuel-Type/ss6t-rumq)

You can see a real-time chart of energy mix here: [https://austinenergy.com/ae/about/environment/renewable- powe...](https://austinenergy.com/ae/about/environment/renewable-power- generation)

Most days renewables are 50% of electricity consumes. I pay a bit extra for 100% wind- and it's not that much more than 50/50\. I could easily see Texas being a majority renewables while at the same time exporting more and more Oil.

<comment><USER3> You should know that oil is hardly used for elec. gen in developed countries. They are only indirect competitors - through the automobile.

<comment> munk-a You in fact shouldn't know this as the EIA reports that 3,239,699 barrels of petroleum products were consumed in august of this year alone for electrical generation in the US (source [https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.03B#/?f=M&start=200001) )

<comment><USER3> I'll change my comment from not -> hardly.

[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)

While your number seems like a lot, it's really just a drop in the bucket. The US consumes close to 8 billion barrels of oil annually. I was, however, surprised that it was still as high as 0.5%.

<comment><USER4> Hawaii likes to generate power that way. Northern parts of Alaska do too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best thing we could do from a strategic standpoint is ready these wells (but not use them), then wait for other countries to exhaust their supplies of petroleum first.

But what's going to happen is we'll frack everywhere, destabilize our bedrock and pollute our water, and still encounter a Hubbert peak in roughly the time it's taken us to ramp up domestic production (probably sometime around 2040). There's no way to predict an exact date for this though.

Then since Venezuela, the Middle East, Russia, the Baltic states, Canada, etc have more oil than anyone, we'll be at their mercy again:

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

The best thing we could do from a scientific/environmental/human rights standpoint is to stop using petroleum for fuel and only use it for manufacturing and as a bridge to renewable energy. This is unprofitable^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H unrealistic so we'll burn it all until externalities can no longer be ignored and the overall prices matches solar. This happened sometime between 2000 and 2010, but it will take a generation for the the general public to notice.

In the meantime I'm a typical hypocrite with an 80s Toyota truck like the one in Back to the Future that gets 15 mpg. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER6> A good related article from The New Yorker:

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/01/the-dark- bount...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/01/the-dark-bounty-of- texas-oil)

Interesting pieces:

In large part because of high oil prices, a disproportionate share of America's economic growth over the past decade has come from Texas. The gross domestic product of the state is $1.6 trillion; if it were an independent country, its economy would settle in around tenth place, eclipsing those of Canada and Australia. California, with forty per cent more residents, has a G.D.P. of $2.6 trillion, but since 2000 job growth in both Dallas and Houston has expanded by about thirty per cent—three times the rate of Los Angeles.

..

.. Because native Texans were suspicious of outside corporate interests—especially John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil—two local companies were formed to develop the new field: Gulf Oil and Texaco. (Both companies have since merged with Chevron.)

..

.. To entice investors to help him drill yet another well, he drew up fake geological reports indicating the presence of salt domes and stratified-rock folds, which can trap oil and natural-gas deposits beneath them. The phony report suggested that, at thirty-five hundred feet, a well could tap into one of the greatest oil deposits in the world. Once again, a wild prediction turned out to be true.

</comment><comment><USER7> Fracked wells have awful production curves. It will be done a few years after they run out of permian to drill. No gentle dropoffs like traditional reservoirs. Though, I'm just an interested bystander, so if any petroleum geologist know of changes that contradict I'm happy to be corrected.

<comment><USER8> Why so gloomy? Something like 6-8 billion barrels in the Permian, we're talking at least 15-20 years out before it's even remotely an issue. Lot more short term and medium them effects to consider before optimizing frack jobs.

<comment><USER9> [https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/izx7rgFSlvy...](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/izx7rgFSlvyQ/v1/660x-1.png)

From [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/shale- exp...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/shale-exploration- production-company-earnings-confidence-game)

>Here is the free cash flow after capital expenditure for a sample of 33 E&P companies, grouped by their main shale basin (all figures compiled by Bloomberg).

>It doesn't require the closest examination of that chart to see fracking is very capital intensive, with E&P firms spending way beyond their means even in the relatively halcyon days of 2012 and 2013. The 14 Permian-exposed companies in that sample saw their cash burn accelerate over the past 12 months to a collective $11.5 billion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's unfortunate that we're in a glut of oil and the price is going down when we should be trying to use less oil. We're not running out any time soon and there's lots of coal too, so it could be very dangerous for the planet.

<comment><USER11> Coal is currently being wiped out by economics in the west and it's past its peak globally, so there's a silver lining.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm hopeful that America can further lessen our dependence on Saudi Arabia as much as possible through this. Alas, the alliance is based around a lot more than just oil, and the Saudi vision is to shift away from oil reliance, but I'll gladly take a chink in the armor.

> "Global oil demand has so far absorbed the extra U.S. crude barrels, > limiting the impact on prices"

This slightly curbs my optimism.

<comment><USER13> This isn't feasible. The refineries in the US are not designed for the same oil produced by the Permian basin (the Permian is producing light crude, US refineries are configured for medium to heavy crude). More importantly, oil is fungible on the world market; you can't effectively dictate "Oil produced in America is consumed in America" without drastically regulating the energy market with public policy (not going to happen).

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports- study/sha...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports-study/shale- oil-growth-to-overwhelm-u-s-refiners-fuel-exports-study-idUSKBN1GH188) (Shale oil growth to overwhelm U.S. refiners, fuel exports: study)

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/shale-oil-has-a-refining- pro...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/shale-oil-has-a-refining-problem-and- morgan-stanley-smells-opportunity.html) (Shale oil has a refining problem, and Morgan Stanley thinks investors can profit)

If you want to lessen your dependency on middle east energy, switch to electric cars, trucks, and busses faster.

<comment><USER14> China imports more oil than we do and their demand for energy is only going to go up. We're producing more energy domestically and lessening our reliance on foreign energy, so China has a bigger incentive to change their energy equation —in addition, their gov can just issue a decree and change policy with but a little corruption interfering a bit.

<comment><USER13> We have spent a non-insignificant amount on the Fifth Fleet (25 navy vessels) to ensure the stable supply of middle eastern oil onto energy markets. That seems to be of substantial incentive to mitigate our need for oil to drive our economy.

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

> Well, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. While working on a > recent piece on how to cut $1 trillion from the $7-trillion-plus U.S. > defense budget over the coming decade, I stumbled upon a provocative > analysis by Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Princeton University. He > says the U.S. has "mis-allocated" — others might say "wasted" — $8 trillion > since 1976 protecting the oil flow from the Persian Gulf that fuels much of > the global economy. Especially since in 2010, when the U.S. was the > destination of less than 10 percent of the oil flowing out of the Gulf.

> The U.S. has insisted, since the days of the Carter Administration, that the > oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf is a vital national-security interest of > the U.S. Beyond that, Presidents and the Pentagon have said, the narrow > Strait of Hormuz is a vulnerable bottleneck for shipping headed out of the > Gulf. Any troublemaker — especially Iran — could bring the U.S. and world > economies to their collective knees by shutting it down by sinking a couple > of tankers as they pass through. Consequently, the U.S. has poured tons of > money into the region since then, including three wars. It has bulked up its > military forces in the neighborhood — including the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, > headquarters in Bahrain, smack dab in the middle of the gulf — to keep the > oil flowing.

[http://nation.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the- obama-a...](http://nation.time.com/2011/04/24/a-question-for-the-obama- administration/) (Have we wasted $8 trillion defending the Persian Gulf from a non-existent threat?)

<comment><USER14> Much of keeping gulf oil flowing is to keep the European and east Asian economies stable —they are petroleum poor. We get most of out foreign petros from Canada, Vz and Mx.

No doubt Trump would love to recall rhe fleet, if possible, but it's not. Unless he'd like to see chaos in the world economy.

<comment><USER15> > Unless he'd like to see chaos in the world economy.

Like trade wars usually tend to cause?

<comment><USER14> Depends. Sometimes you have cause on your side. In this case we do know China does not play fair. Nothing weird about it except previous prezes always crossed their fingers, knocked on wood and hoped others would play fair just cuz. I'm actually pleased a president finally decided to call it for whst it is and do something about it and not just talk and take token steps for publicity and then forget about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There is a pincer: Texas on one side and electric vehicles on the other: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18473697](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18473697).

<comment><USER17> ... which is why SA is so determined to diversify its holdings.

<comment><USER9> For that t succeed, they'll have to convince the world to buy into Aramco's IPO – right when EV sales will have crossed the chasm in multiple countries: [https://valuendow.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Exhibit-1.j...](https://valuendow.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Exhibit-1.jpg)

I hope they have good sales reps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _Many of them would turn a profit even with crude prices as low as $30 a barrel._

That is impressive and would seriously undercut a whole lot of nations including Russia and Venezuela. It really shows the advances and quality of the oil.

</comment><comment><USER19> Less dependency on foreign oil is good for peace since the US will not be "protecting their interests". And Saudi Arabia having less budget for their wars is also a good thing.

<comment><USER10> The US will always seek to control Middle East oil, it's a huge lever on the rest of the world.

<comment><USER9> For another decade or two, yes.

In the meantime, China is building a global supply chain to provide with world with solar panels and batteries. And bankrupt all the US companies/banks that keep investing in fossil fuels. It's all about your investment horizon I guess.

<comment><USER20> >>For another decade or two, yes.

If the US stays focussed on mid-east for the next 2 decades, and not counter China. Or rather just let China be as they are. China will have the world domination on a platter for the next few centuries.

Oil is the old game. That game probably even ended after the 1990's. The US has been fighting wrong wars for the past 30 years.

China is quietly, and yet steadily emerging as the next super power. Albeit like the UK in the past. No intention to fight any direct wars or make aggressive moves. Instead control the world's oceans, and establish trade empires. Let the current super power bankrupt itself fighting wars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a disaster for the climate.

<comment><USER22> how so? Consumption won't go up proportionally to the drop in price of fuel. I see it as an antidote to the middle east conflict where the developed countries have a hand in it. If petro nations source of income is affected, there's a hope that Middle East conflict will end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Everyone is now rushing to sell oil, before demand for it will start falling rapidly.

<comment><USER24> The Texas oil bubble is fueled by massive debt and very rosy long term exploitation projections. Too rosy maybe according to some; there's been some rumors a lot of oil companies in Texas have been overstating their long term supplies. Either way, low oil prices are a good thing since it cuts off more the expensive sources as a realistically viable.

It's actually helping to kill off oil investments because why bother if the prices stay below what is actually profitable. A lot of recent investments only made sense at 70$+ a barrel. Now that 30$ is on the table, those investments are effectively under water. The price volatility alone should scare investors. Imagine it drops another 10$ because Opec throws in the towel and unleashes the floodgates?

Meanwhile, oil dependence is being addressed by ongoing electrification so lower demand is going to keep prices low even as supply declines. This ensures that by the time the shit hits the fan (cheap supplies run out), it won't be as much of an issue. In 20 years when most transport is electric, the barrel price for oil will be much less relevant for most. There will still be a need for oil of course but not at the levels needed today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> How about we leave all that shit in the ground where it can't kill us?

</comment><comment><USER26> ...because the US is the only market for oil, right?

</comment><comment><USER27> The AMP version linked is barely readable on a large display; but the regular version is at [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/opec-s- wo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/opec-s-worst- nightmare-the-permian-is-about-to-pump-a-lot-more)

<comment><USER28> The AMP version with Firefox's reader view is great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Does this mean oil will continue do plummet bc of so much supply?

</comment><comment><USER30> What hyperbolic clickbait nonsense.

> If Saudi Arabia and its allies cut production when they gather Dec. 6 in > Vienna, higher prices would allow shale to steal market share.

Considering oil prices have gone from near $80 to near $55 in about a month, I'm guessing they've decided to maintain or even increase production. That is unless the saudis and the wall st banksters decide to game the market as they do from time to time. But of course the bloomberg "journalists" wouldn't know anything about it or investigate that because they are allergic to real journalism like more establishment media.

> But because the Saudis need higher crude prices to make money than U.S. > producers, OPEC can't afford to let prices fall.

The saudis make money on their oil. They don't need higher prices for that and certainly their oil is more profitable than shale oil. What they need is higher oil prices to maintain their government budget.

If you want to know what a joke bloomberg is...

The same journalist wrote this today : "Saudi Oil Production Surges to Record in Early November"

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/saudi- oil...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/saudi-oil- production-said-to-surge-to-record-in-early-november)

If anyone working at bloomberg knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't be working at bloomberg. They'd be raking in the millions working for themselves.

<comment><USER31> I also find it weird that bloomberg articles keep popping up and being upvoted here. It's not exactly clear where bloomberg stands quality-wise (whatever happened to those tampered chips that nobody found??). Doubly so, because bloomberg has a tight grip on investors and can directly manipulate markets, which should make them a target of regulation. I don't even understand why bloomberg changed its model from being exclusive to pursuing becoming a mainstream medium.</comment></comment>


Senator asks if FBI can get iPhone 5S fingerprint data via Patriot Act - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/senator-asks-if-fbi-can-get-iphone-5s-fingerprint-data-via-patriot-act/

<comment><USER2> And this illustrates my problem with Franken and all the far left -- government agencies are trampling over Americans' privacy, and his issue is whether a private company is taking sufficient safeguards to avoid making it easier for the government to trample that privacy.

As opposed to, you know, getting government to stop abusing its power.

Half of his questions are "what's Apple's legal interpretation of our abusive laws?" It doesn't really matter what Apple's interpretation is. What matters is the secret court's secret decisions about what those laws mean. It's good that Franken voted against renewing the Patriot act, but he should be sending this letter to his colleagues that voted for it, not Apple.

<comment><USER3> In what world is Al Franken "far left"?

<comment><USER4> In the current US political climate, where implementing a Republican health care plan gets you branded a "socialist", obviously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not like a scanner that's taking a picture of a finger and storing the image on a chip. From what I can tell, the biometric markers of individual fingerprints are used as a hash to generate a strong password -- much stronger than a user generated password. The fact is, the standard 4 digit pins that most users use are not very secure. (From what I can recall of a recent security seminar I attended.)

Given the privacy concerns that have been news lately, it's understandable that this would raise some eyebrows, but when combined with something like the iCloud keychain for generating strong online passwords, this could actually be a great benefit to individual privacy.

<comment><USER6> It's possible the device is storing a second key of some sort as well as regenerate each time a fingerprint is set. It may even regenerate it each time a scan is done and reset the password.

I.E. hash( hash(fingerprint) + stored key ) = actual password.

<comment><USER7> IIRC I think I saw someone else saying that each fingerprint hash was hashed with a key specific to each phone so that if you were able to extract the fingerprint hash it would be unusable on the target's other devices. I cannot find the source for this so please take this with a large grain of salt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks like the anti-spying-stories brigade is out in full force today flagging this and the two stories about GCHQ hacking the Belgian telecom companies

</comment><comment><USER9> I still don't understand all this uproar over fingerprinting.

Fingerprints are _obviously_ incredibly insecure. They're _obviously_ identifiable. How is this news?

Fingerprint readers on phones are like locks on doors -- they deter casual people, but are totally worthless against anyone determined. But still pretty useful for their convenience in most situations.

Fingerprint readers on phones are for preventing your mother or your girlfriend or your son or your coworker from getting into your phone. And nothing more. It does zilch against police/government/espionage/etc. But it was never supposed to, any more than your front lock is supposed to keep a SWAT team out.

</comment><comment><USER6> It should be worth noting, taking someone's fingerprint and duplicating it is surprisingly easy. In fact, a duplicate print has been used to open door locks and even computer locks as the Mythbusters have shown :

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hji3kp_i9k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hji3kp_i9k)

<comment><USER10> Back in 2008, the CCC even stole and published a fingerprint of Wolfgang Schäuble, who was the Minister of the Interior in Germany at that time.

[http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/CCC- publishes-f...](http://www.h-online.com/newsticker/news/item/CCC-publishes- fingerprints-of-German-Home-Secretary-734713.html)

<comment><USER11> "Stole" is a pretty heightened word for something we leave on literally everything we touch

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The answer to this problem is to create a technology which allows for easy replication of fingerprints once you have a digital copy. Once that technology exists it will completely remove the use and value of fingerprints since the existence of a finger print won't prove anything.

3D printers could provide that system as long as they are precise enough to print fingerprints at scale.

<comment><USER13> That's an interesting solution.

re-create some super VIP's prints and plant them in undesirable places they obviously did not go to; then publicize it. Render the whole 'fingerprint as an identifier' thing with uncertainty and doubt.

I believe Objet/Stratsys still have the highest resolution printers at 16 micron layers and 30 micron-width droplets.

A quick google search says the papillary ridges of a fingerprint could be safely assumed at between .020 and 2.0mm in height[1]; that might be printable now.

Fun thought, anyway.

[1]-[http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=216913](http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=216913)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> lol "Passwords are secret and dynamic"

Passwords are often static, shared, and relatively easy to crack.

<comment><USER15> That's not the point. The point is that the fingerprint uniquely identifies you, and it's difficult to change.

It's like using your SIN as a secret.

<comment><USER4> Well, it's currently pretty easy to change. I use my fingerprint in exactly one place right now: as the unlock code for my new iPhone. (Yep, I stood in line and everything.) If somehow my fingerprint got stolen, I could trivially change the unlock code by switching back to a regular passcode and disabling the fingerprint unlock.

I don't understand the big concern over this fingerprint sensor. I get the idea of some concern on a theoretical level, but compared to the rest of any smartphone's ready-made spying functions, like the ability to see where you are at any point in the day, the ability to record or even transmit live every conversation you have, the ability to steal every password you enter into the device, etc. etc., fingerprint theft seems completely unimportant. So far, I've yet to get a satisfactory answer to just what bad things would happen if the NSA was, in fact stealing everyone's iPhone fingerprint data. I'd rather they not, but it's minor compared to everything else that's going on.

<comment><USER16> Furthermore, if Apple did it right, they'd store a hashed reading of the fingerprint, and probably salt that with the device's ID or some private key unique to the device (quite straightforward).

So that would mean that even if someone stole your print (say the stored hash), it wouldn't work without the iPhone. At that point, in order to attack someone's AppStore account with a fingerprint, it becomes 2-factor security... and that "something to have" token can be revoked by remote wipe.

<comment><USER17> how do you verify fingerprint if you only store a hashed reference?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That will be released on the iPhone 6.66

</comment><comment><USER19> We sat in our office and joked about this very thing when we watched the announcement. Sad, really.

</comment><comment><USER20> "You have only ten of them."

Did anybody think of using toes yet?

<comment><USER16> Yes. [http://reviews.cnet.com/iphone-5s/](http://reviews.cnet.com/iphone-5s/)

"The Touch ID-enabled home button feels invisible; it works with a tap, can recognize your finger from many angles, and feels like it has less of a fail rate than fingerprint sensors I've used on laptops. It's impressive tech. It worked on all my fingers, and even my _toe_ (I was curious)."

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> why isn't this on the first page? 42 points in an hour? I see something with 42 points in 2 hours on the first page.</comment>


Economic Space Agency (ecsa.io) – Software  Engineer - <AUTHOR> SF, Europe, World | Software Engineer, ML/Algorithm / ONSITE / INTERNS / REMOTE / VISA
Our aim is to transform finance. We are building tools for people to operate new network technologies that will produce a radically different economy. Our first product is Sherwood. A new blockchain based crowdfinance service.
Sherwood is a social platform for the easy creation, use and tailoring of smart peer-to-peer financial instruments and agreements that leverage the power of the Ethereum blockchain to create secure, modular and novel interactions within and across networks of users at every scale. Sherwood enables entirely new ways of opening joint opportunities, sharing stakes and ownerships, risks and rewards, generating a new palette of financial/social relationships. It is a place for rapid building & deployment of little DAOs.
Looking for: Full stack developer, with knowledge on Angular, Django (Python), and Mysql. NodeJS experience is appreciated, but not required.
We also have more financial instruments technology in the money market and capital market space in the pipeline. Candidates with experience of financial algorithm (or just algorithm) is encouraged too.
http://ecsa.io | Contact: firstname.lastname@example.com <comment><AUTHOR> Our intention's to post it in: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12202865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12202865) but something's wrong, and this is what happened. Would appreciate any help. Thanks!</comment>


Centimeter Positioning with a Smartphone-Quality GNSS Antenna - <AUTHOR> http://gpsworld.com/accuracy-in-the-palm-of-your-hand/

<comment><USER2> This is a duplicate post.</comment>


Kamcord raises $1.5M from a16z, Google Ventures to record mobile gameplays - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/19/mobile-game-recording-yc-alum-kamcord-raises-1-5-million-from-andreessen-horowitz-google-ventures-and-others/

<comment><USER2> Congrats to the Kamcord team! Looking forward to watching you guys dominate the space.

</comment><comment><USER3> congrats guys! keep crushing it and make a serious dent in the mobile gaming industry. Your technology has a huge potential and I wished I had access to it in some recent games I played on my iPhone.</comment>


Introduction to Named Pipes - <AUTHOR> https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2156 <comment><USER2> This makes me wonder if named pipes is a solution to a problem I'm having.

I use a 3rd party took with a Python API which only takes filenames (not stdin and not Python file objects). It natively understands gzip and non-gzip files.

I would like it to support zstandard compression.

I think I can set up a named pipe with ["zstdcat", "filename.zstd"] as input, directed to a named pipe, and have the 3rd party toolkit read from that named pipe, as a regular text file.

But I'm a bit confused about the coordination.

1) how do I find a valid file system location? I can use tempfile to get a writable file location, but that might be on a network scratch disk. Is that going to be okay, or do I need some mechanism to be able to specify a local writable filesystem?

2) I can start the zstdcat via subprocess, but how do I know when to wait() on it, given that the 3rd party doesn't (easily) tell me when it's done. (I guess I can put a wrapper around the API, and check with the reader finishes.)

3) How do I manage removing the named pipe? Is there a way to do that automatically when both sides close? Or is there some other mechanism I could do?

I can do all this via wrappers of various sorts, but the coordination seems complex, and I'm not sure what will happen if I ^C in the middle of things.

Has anyone here done something like this before? I don't see any relevant package on PyPI for this sort of wrapping.</comment>


Rip Your Resume in Half and Other Things You Won't Hear from HR - <AUTHOR> http://resumeskills.us/ <comment><USER2> >"The typical hiring process endorsed by Human Resources is a massive waste of time, calculated to keep hordes of applicants away from hiring managers."

This is so true. And I have to wonder why companies allow this nonsense? I'm usually left wondering who is the average "recruiter"?

They are amongst the most clueless, unprofessional and inefficient people working at these tech companies. And yet they have one of the most important jobs there.

This is not to say all are like this as there are some excellent recruiters out there but I would say that overwhelmingly most are not.

I feel like the majority of "recruiters" fall into one of two camps. The first is not actually an employee but a contractor, who hops from one company to another and so has no real vested interest the process or how they represent the company.

The second I think is a HR generalist for whom "recruiting" is just another responsibility along with all their other daily exigencies.

Either one of those generally results in a suboptimal experience for both the candidate and the company.

We often hear about how hard it is to find good people. I don't think there's a talent shortage problem, I think there's a recruiter problem.

The deep irony is that these are the very same companies who seek to disrupt and/or exploit some market inefficiency. That mentality of innovation seems to exclude their own hiring process though.

<comment><USER3> Depends on the position. I've had some openings where several hundred people applied. I don't have time to read 100 resumes, so anything that filters things down is good. Other positions HR has told me there have been no applicants in 2 weeks, and we need to open up the job description somehow.

For programming positions I safely take anybody who knows how to program. It doesn't matter if you know C++ or not (we do most of our work in C++ - you can substitute any language), by the time IT gets you a computer you will know enough C++ to be left on your own. However except in the case of obviously bad jobs (anyone want to do complex merges all day - I have a job opening that is essentially that) such a job opening would give me too many resumes to read.

<comment><USER4> How do you reconcile "too many resumes to read" with the meme that there is a massive hiring shortage?

<comment><USER5> There is an unlimited number of unqualified people who apply to almost every tech job hoping to get lucky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I despise one page resumes. I want detail so I can figure out whether to bother with you or not. The only time a short resume is ok is when you have big names in your employer list, or major awards, or something. If you have Google 2005-2015 or something, you really don't need to say much more beyond what languages/technologies/libraries you used there. But for the other 99% of people, I want to hear what you worked on, in detail. I can skim through a 5 page resume just as fast as a one page resume.

edit: After reading the article fully: This person is the opposite of me. I've read hundreds of resumes, and I want depth and detail so I don't waste my time. Reading resumes is the cheapest part of the process. Just make sure your HR is sending you anything remotely decent, they should only be a very light filter.

<comment><USER7> Having reviewed hundreds, maybe over a thousand, resumes in the last decade- I am fully in agreement on hating one page resumes.

That being said, if it's five pages long, I'm not reading most of it anyway.

Here's what I care about:

\- What has this person been doing the last couple of years?

\- Who were they doing it for?

\- Scanning their overall work history, does anything interesting (good or bad) stand out. If so, make note for the interview if we get there.

\- A list of any accomplishments of note. Patents, speaking engagements, related awards, publications, etc.

I don't care about your hobbies, your family, or your GPA.

I'm not going to reject your resume because it was too long if I can easily grep the data I'm looking for. I might reject it if it's too short/empty though.

Because this is what I look for, I keep my resume in the same pattern. The last few years of my work history will contain way more detail. A few years out I start summarizing, 6+ years out its only really big things of note or stuff I'm especially proud of still.

I have a (small) accomplishments section after that, education last. 12 years of history, organized and summarized in about 3 pages with a lot of space.

<comment><USER8> > I'm not going to reject your resume because it was too long if I can easily > grep the data I'm looking for.

I think this is a key point. Layout and presentation are really important. Even 1 page of dense, undifferentiated text is a lot. But 3 pages of well presented, sectioned content is pretty easy to read.

<comment><USER6> Totally agree. A shitty 5 page resume (and I've seen plenty) is a major turnoff. But so is a shitty 1 page resume (and I've seen even more of those!).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing that can take a while to remember, if you've generally ran with the "gifted" crowd in school (Read: top 10% reading comprehension scores on the SAT), is that most people are just uncomfortable reading, it takes them a lot of time, and they don't like doing it. It's almost always a good idea to shorten/simplify any text meant for an unknown audience.

<comment><USER10> That's really difficult for me. I always end up writing novels for emails then wondering why people only answered the first question.

(and they missed out parts (b) and (c) of the question, plus they didn't read the linked web pages supporting my assertions)

Yes, I really need to cut back on how much I type there, but I have trouble communicating in person so text is just so much more comfortable for me. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

<comment><USER11> I've found that leading people into a back and forth conversation where I can guide them through those same points, rather than try to get them all out at once, works better. Just go one at a time until you are sure they are on the same page.

I also try to eliminate parentheticals. Branching lines of thought are very difficult for most people.

<comment><USER12> > Branching lines of thought are very difficult for most people.

I haven't watched it, so this question might not be relevant - but how do you explain the popularity of shows like "Game of Thrones"?

From what I gather, it has several various plot lines woven over and around multiple episodes and seasons.

People also don't seem to have any problems deciphering the various "plot lines" within their own circles of family and friends (in my experience with people who seem to have waaaay too much drama in their lives).

Is there something about "video" that makes it easier to parse in this fashion than text? Does emotional attachment to characters in such dramas (or personal involvement) make it easier to understand intertwined plot lines?

Just musing on things here...hmm.

<comment><USER9> Most people who watch GOT _don 't_ get all the plotlines. If you talk to regular showwatchers (not book), they regularly mistake Stannis for Tywin for Roose etc...They get enough of the gist to enjoy it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Resume writer here. A good one page resume is a strong signal from a candidate IMO and experience. It tells the reader "I don't need to tell you every minute detail of my career to impress you. I want to start a conversation, and I think this one page detail is enough for you to make the decision to start that conversation."

I'll write a one page resume and a longer form resume for many clients. The longer form resume can be useful during the actual interview, as it can provide the interviewer with some fodder to ask about from the applicant's experience.

A one page resume also tells the reader "I don't want to burden you with more information than you need". When an applicant sends a five-page resume to a company, there is some tacit expectation that the applicant wants the recipient to read the whole thing (otherwise, why did he/she include five pages?). That's an unnecessary burden to put on someone.

A single page resume isn't always entirely practical, but there are ways to make it work even for people with 10 or 20 years of experience. Keep in mind that a resume doesn't need to include every single job (the details of the oldest jobs of technologists tend to be almost entirely irrelevant).

The resume also has to be written with the mindset that the reader isn't likely qualified to even determine what the candidate does. You have to assume the reader (when human) is looking for keywords in the same way a machine (applicant tracking system) is, so including a summary that simplifies it for the reader is useful.

When the CTO of a startup tells the temp at the front desk "You're screening our resumes today, only send along Python developers with over five years of experience", a resume summary that begins with "Python Developer with five years of experience..." checks all the reader's boxes right away.

When writing the resume, make it as easy as possible for the reader to figure out who you are and what you do. Don't use inside baseball terms or corporate lingo that doesn't translate. Remove noise to allow hiring signal to come through.

</comment><comment><USER14> Even at the end of my 28 year career, my resume was only two pages. I continually edited it down. The older stuff, probably no longer relevant stuff, was reduced to just a few words. For anything older than 4 years, only a sentence describing the work is sufficient. If the interviewer is interested, they can ask.

<comment><USER15> This is the right approach. The problem with the vast majority of multi-page resumes is that the writer has an editing problem. If you can fill out 5 pages with worthwhile info, I suppose that would be fine? But if you're at the level where you can fill out 5 pages of worthwhile info, you'd be recruited directly by the CTO and your resume wouldn't come close to me.

<comment><USER16> You have to get to the CEO these days.

I have one of these five pages resume. I usually get a job offer after an interview.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've around +12 years of experience and my resume is one and half page. Half of that will be opensource contribution not related to any organization. If recruiter needs more info, we can always discuss that during interview itself :-)

Edit: If anyone curious about the format/layout, here its: [http://www.giis.co.in/LakshmipathiG.pdf](http://www.giis.co.in/LakshmipathiG.pdf)

<comment><USER18> Yes and your showing that your older than the other applicants. I really struggle with today's system from HR.

My wife wants to move back to her home state. I have over 25 years experience and I have sent out 40+ applications. Jobs I am perfect for, jobs I am under qualified for and entry level jobs. ZERO Phone Calls.

I need to just put my application like I am straight out of school.

<comment><USER19> Is it obvious that you are currently not living locally?

Many places shy away with dealing with non-local applicants for various, often silly, reasons:

They don't want to offer/negotiate relocation expenses, don't want to deal with long distance interviews, don't have the setup/infra to give good long distance interviews, not willing to pay for travel for an in person interview, not willing to conduct only phone/video interviews, not willing to feel responsible for having an applicant pay their own expenses to travel for an interview.

Many places are not willing to consider/interview someone with those moving parts because if they don't hire them, or things don't work out after hiring them then the company/manager will feel responsible and the applicant might bad mouth the employer. Granted bad mouthing an employer after a bad hire experience can and does happen, it doesn't often have as much weight and drama as when someone "moved across the country".

It's easier for an applicant to shout "I flew across the country to interview and this company is/was a joke... they didn't hire me, and I had to pay to travel to the interview!" or "I was hired by this company and I 'moved across the country' for it and then they canned me for [stupid] reasons a, b, c, they are a joke! They 'ruined my life' Avoid them!".

Unfortunately you need to move then look for a [local] job or conceal that you are not currently a local applicant at least until to are at an in person interview.

<comment><USER18> My address is my In-Laws where I will be living when we move back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Two issues with a one-page resume.

First, to get to the phone screen many companies now use some form of automation to weed out applications. Less words simply means less chance of an automated match against the job description criteria.

Second, never underestimate how lazy the HR screener is. They aren't technical, they aren't ambitious, they're generally borderline incompetent people whose sole marketable skill is that they are pleasant to talk with. If you don't spell out, in detail, that you're a Front-end Developer who uses X, Y, Z tools for N years the screener won't be able to read between the lines.

Quick example... I was in a time crunch so I asked a recruiter to find me a Front-end Dev. She came back and asked for a job description, project brief, culture brief, competitors / no hire list, and salary range. I felt like she was asking the right questions, she seemed smart. A week goes by, "Sorry, no candidates." Oh... Ok, well it's a hot market... we can up the price $5k.

Next week, "Sorry, no candidates." Hmm, that's really odd. She apologized, said she had gotten over 100 resumes, and said, "Nobody has 5 years of HTML / CSS experience listed on their resume." After a brief talk, she fundamentally didn't understand anything past a direct keyword match.

Anyway good and bad recruiters, but you never know when your resume is going to end up in the hands of someone really junior. Better to have everything spelled out. Better to be explicit around what you did with each past job. Generally the posted job description is all the recruiter is going off of to match you, so it's easy to tune your resume to fit.

* Optimize Your Resume and Boost Interview Chances - Jobscan || [https://www.jobscan.co/](https://www.jobscan.co/)

<comment><USER21> > Second, never underestimate how lazy the HR screener is. They aren't > technical, they aren't ambitious, they're generally borderline incompetent > people whose sole marketable skill is that they are pleasant to talk with.

There are a lot of HR people in the world, that is a bit of a generalisation, don't you think? I'm sure there are lots of great HR people, and lots of incompetent HR people, just like any other job.

<comment><USER20> I can count on one hand the number of good recruiters I've worked with over the years. Generally they view it all as a numbers game, spam over candidates until one sticks. They won't go out of their way to understand things is what I meant by "ambitious" there... If a candidate is thinking, "Well, my resume is basically just a link to my GitHub profile," or, "I have all these awesome references on LinkedIn..." I would caution them to not rely on HR people going that extra step to get the info -- it should all be on the resume or it's probably not going to get looked at.

<comment><USER22> I could count on one hand the number of good recruiters I have worked with _and_ the number of Voltron lion robots.

Every second I spent talking to a recruiter has been an absolutely unmitigated waste of time. And they always try to waste _so much_ of my time, too. They always seem to want to "touch base" and "reach out", or try to mine my contact list for other prospects. It didn't take long for me to figure out that they care not at all about _my_ outcome, and overwhelmingly prefer quantity over quality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am an engineer who had to do many interviews and before conducting interviews I always look at the resume. In my opinion, I rather have 6 pages resume than 1-2 page with so low information that I have no idea what really was done in the last 10 years of this person. That being said, the first page should give the core idea to pursue the reading, but once you have reached the first scan I am in favor bigger resume than a thin one.

<comment><USER24> I'm also an engineer who has had to interview. My question to you is: how do you filter through 100 people each with 6 pages resumes? I'd rather have 1 page, 2 max, because I have to filter through a bunch of people in a short amount of time.

I did the math once and for the initial filter which was the resume scan, I and another person gave about 1 1/2 minutes per applicant and it still took an hour! I doubt in the future I'll get any more time so please make it scannable in ~1 1/2 minutes.

<comment><USER25> Would you rather spend an extra minute or two on the resume scan or an extra half an hour in the interview only to find that a month after you hired them, they're incapable of doing the job?

Careful where you think you're wasting time and effort.

<comment><USER24> You bring up a good point. My counterpoints:

1\. Decision fatigue \- A longer resume doesn't make the choice easier, it makes it harder because now I have more to compare and contrast more.

2\. Half-life of knowledge \- I did computer vision about 5 years ago, but I leave it off my current resume because I know the field has changed so dramatically since I last did it that my knowledge of it is out of date.

<comment><USER26> I think your comment about computer vision illustrates what's wrong with this industry. If you were able to do computer vision 5 years ago you should be able to get up to speed now. This attitude doesn't allow most of to build a decent resume but instead we have to chase the latest tech all the time and none of our experience counts. For example I would prefer someone who worked on a big complex web site ten years ago with the tools available then over someone who has done a simple web site with the latest React version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I like to have two resumes.

One is optimized for getting past HR and screeners. It should check the boxes the job posting has, and leave out anything that indicates your age, unless they specifically ask for 10+ years of experience.

The other a longer, more detailed one to hand your interviewer during the interview in case they want to talk about specific experiences more.

Either way - you're always gambling here. You can't read the personality on the other side of a job post. Even if that job post looks like the best dev manager in the world wrote it (and that may be the case even) it doesn't mean that applications don't go through the screener who's also handling the hires for janitor, marketing rep, and help desk. It could also be going directly to that manager, and they may have a preference for detail.

<comment><USER28> I too have multiple resumes - in pdf, odt, txt. I simultanously keep them up to date and consistent so that when the recruitment system has obnoxious requirements I simply copy paste into the fields from the txt version. One is simply unable to win this game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicant_tracking_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicant_tracking_system)

Applicant Tracking Systems have arguably been a disaster for humans seeking positions in larger organizations. Taleo etc are laughably basic and typically miss valuable candidates because they work on 90's era keyword loading...I know this having hired for lots of positions in a couple of large companies. You can copy all the keywords in a job application, stuff your resume with them and the ATS will pick up the resume as 'valuable'

I can't say anything positive about the vast majority of HR organizations, who are mostly just sitting in the management meetings waiting for instructions to fire or hire and have virtually no influence outside that...

</comment><comment><USER30> Are people intentionally crafting their resume in such a way that the first page(ish?) could essentially be read as a standalone thing -noting the highlights and main points. Then the remaining pages would, in a sense re- state some of what the initial page has but drill down and provide more detail. Is that a good approach to take?

<comment><USER31> That's essentially what I do. First page is all I expect the interviewer to read. My resume is 2 pages for >10 years of experience.

I agressively delete unrelated skills and promote related skills based on the job description.

<comment><USER30> If you're writing your first page as a standalone thing though that matches what the posting is looking for, do you think you need to eliminate unrelated things on the remaining pages?

<comment><USER31> Yeah, I wasn't super clear about my scenario. I have a "all skills" resume and I pare that down for each job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I changed my long resume last year to a one-page, largely graphical one, but it hasn't performed well. Might be going back to the old one.

<comment><USER33> Got an application from a developer that looked _terrible_. Was ready to dismiss it, when I happened to notice there were patterns to the garbage, and it was really _too_ terrible for anyone. Asked her to send me the original and I found the culprit:

It was two columns.

That was all it took to throw off the resume parser at Indeed of all places. So what you're doing will be hopelessly destroyed by any resume parser out there. That is likely the reason for the performance.

<comment><USER32> There's no reliable way to parse a resume, mine is a pdf, and almost all sites ask for additional fields anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> While one pager resumes are the standard advice (and yet not many people know that), I see that the author of this article is biased towards the resume skills of a person.

You are not judging the person on his technical merits and suitability of the role but rather his resume skills. Unless the role you are hiring for is creating resumes.

Again, "tell me why I should hire you and in plain english" is just a bad question and a bad intent. You as an interviewer need to judge that and rather say here is why you should join.

</comment><comment><USER35> Opinions are like...

Well, here's mine, on qualities of a good resume:

      - consistent style
      - no complete sentences (too verbose especially w/ consistency)
      - everything relevant listed
      - good organization, most relevant things first
      - LaTeX or markdown for consistent formatting in your output
      - no typos
      - nice resume paper (a nice touch)

Anything marginally but decidedly helpful that goes past the first page is likely to be ignored, but maybe keep it anyways, especially if you've been in the workforce for more than 10 years. Less than 10 years, probably keep it to one page.

<comment><USER36> I thought about using markdown for my resume but I was afraid that nobody would know what it was.

At my current job I have found one person that knows what markdown is. Could you go into more detail for me please?

<comment><USER35> I use LaTeX, a document markup language, for my and my wife's resume. (The resumes come out very nice.)

Markdown can be used to output to LaTeX, but I haven't built a build-chain that takes markdown and puts it into my prefered resume style yet.

I'd like to build one, though, but I'm still not sure what type of markdown to use.

If you're a developer applying directly to a hiring manager who is also a developer, and you're going to bypass traditional HR, you might try a resume preformatted as markdown, which seems to be what you thought I meant, but I think that would be a bit nichey - meaning it probably won't work in most situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > Tell me, in simple English, what you have to offer and why I should hire > you.

What does this look like, exactly?

Edit: Surely it looks different if I were to hand it to a hiring manager vs a machine reading resumes, yes? What are examples of both?

</comment><comment><USER38> I wish this article got into:

1\. how to find the hiring manager for a role (take a wild stab on LinkedIn)?

2\. after that, reach out to them directly on LinkedIn and reference the job listing? Attempt to guess their email format and cold email?

<comment><USER39> I think if your item #1 were a reality, HR departments would mysteriously get more jobs filled quicker, and with likely more appropriately-matched candidates. And, yet, HR systems and processes seemed designed as the article notes, to block the "flood" of candidates. It is silly really, and I agree with you 100%!

<comment><USER38> Along the same vein, how do you even address a cover letter if you don't know the name of the hiring manager? I always felt like "To the Attention of the Hiring Manager" was cheesy and impersonal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> not matter how pretty you format your CV you'll sit at and interview wondering why the interviewer is looking an mangled up piece of paper which turns out to be your CV.

Also recruiters that have a form with 10 textareas (for you to fill out career history) are the worst.

</comment><comment><USER41> 1\. Tell why you aren't a fit.

2\. Tell why you are an exceptional fit.

3\. Tell where you can see your work.

I have not spent five years working with Docker tooling. I do have experience with ___, ___ and ___ and if you've used ____, _____ and _____ (in this case on Android) you've used my work.

80% interview rate.

<comment><USER42> > 80% interview rate.

What does this mean? 80% interview pass? 80% successful hires as manager/interviewer?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> One page CV, not more not less than that!

</comment><comment><USER44> I read a lot of resumes. I only ever read the first page, and only up to the first bad spelling error.

</comment><comment><USER45> I like nice typo. Easily adds 30% pages.

</comment><comment><USER46> If a website looks like its from the '90s I don't care what the content says. I'm going on to the next thing.

<comment><USER47> If that's true, then why are you here at HN? The UI is little different than Slashdot from 20 years ago.</comment></comment>


NASA Pursues Atom Optics to Detect Gravitational Waves - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/atom-optics.html

<comment><USER2> Why rubidium? If I recall correctly, rubidium was also used in the first Bose- Einstein condensate experiments. Does it have properties that make it especially useful for low-temperature physics?

<comment><USER3> Yes. As I understand it rubidium is used because you can cool it with cheap laser diodes from CD players.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is just a $100K award ([http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/niac_2012_phaseIand...](http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/niac_2012_phaseIandII_awards.html)), highly speculative, in an area (long-baseline interferometry) that has been explored by many groups.</comment>


Programming purgatory - <AUTHOR> I'm a high school student who's had an interest in computer science on and off for about 7 years. I'm planning on going to college for software engineering or computer science, possibly informatics. In all the years I've been trying to learn I feel like I've never made it past the beginner stages, even when the course says it's complete. What should I be doing to help myself going into college and beyond <comment><USER2> Many years ago I read an article which concluded that people who went to school because they wanted to learn about computers were likely to fail. Those who went to school because they wanted to learn to use a computer to do something (make music) (draw pictures) (control a process) (anything) were more likely to succeed.

To be a successful programmer you need to know two things. You need to know how to program. You need to know the subject your program is about, whether it be accounting, process control, graphics, or any other subject.

I started my computer education in 1962 when I bought the book, "Thinking Machines" by Irving Adler. I have worked with computers most of my life (I'm retired now) and the complexity of what there is to know has grown exponentially and shows no sign of relenting. You will not be able to learn all there is to know about computers. Don't feel bad. Nobody knows that much. This is what leads to "impostor syndrome", the feeling that you are unqualified for the position you were hired for.

leonp92 is correct in saying side projects are the way to go. Start with simple applications. Write something which is useful to you or something which is fun. The satisfaction of seeing your effort pay off will fuel your passion.

</comment><comment><USER3> Side projects. It doesn't have to be anything big or anything, you can start out with a simple script that scrapes websites or something. The best way to gain experience in coding is to code [it's even better when whatever you're working on is practical].

When working on your projects I would focus on good programming practices and patterns. I say this because I get lazy and sloppy when I work on my side project vs what other people would see. Also, know what your code is really doing rather than just copy and pasting it from the internet.

</comment><comment><USER4> Beware committing your career to something for which you don't really seem to have displayed much passion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh I have passion, I'm just axious because I never feel like I know what I'm doing

<comment><USER5> I'll let you in on a secret, the best minds don't know whats going on most of the time. Just go with the flow and be open minded and accommodating and you'll be well on your way to achieving your goals.

<comment><AUTHOR> well that makes me feel better! I feel like I have to google every little thing</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pylance Is a New Python Language Server for Visual Studio Code - <AUTHOR> https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/pylance-visual-studio-code/ <comment><USER2> I wonder why are they keeping this project as closed source, unlike the old language server</comment>


Evolution of a website over 15 years - <AUTHOR> http://jamespanderson.tumblr.com/post/2554556225/evolution-of-a-website-over-15-years

<comment><USER2> I hate to be harsh (I've been told off about it just now in an earlier comment too!) but the one thing that stands out most in this series of redesigns is how not a single one of them presents a brand that stands out in any way... it seems like every one is a cookie-cutter of other websites' style. Near the end they even start to look like keyword-spam holding sites.

Have you considered taking a very slight risk and actually creating a striking, unique brand that people will remember after going to your site?

Also, your logo looks like a frowning face... you sure you want that?

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair criticism, I know used cars, not branding unfortunately (I've always seen a smiling car face in the logo!). If you are experienced with branding feel free to contact me.

<comment><USER2> I think you should reach out to some dustin-curtis-like character in your area (i.e. a strongly opinionated designer with the talent to match) and get them on board to help you define your brand better... might be worth giving them some shares to incentivise them. If you're seeing plenty of business already even with bad branding, imagine how much you'll get if your brand is more convincing and memorable!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's shocking how many websites still look like the first screenshot (yet we've seemed to universally do away with the site counters).

<comment><USER4> These days many people put a twitter followers counter or a "this many people liked the page on facebook" link up.

Why? Social proof[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof>]</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Online Sales Tax – When must you charge for it? - <AUTHOR> I've been curious when should you collect sales tax online? It doesn't seem clear to me.
In the case of a company that allows people to post ads or jobs on websites? Would you be required to collect sales tax? What if your company is based in DE?
I'm going to speak to a lawyer, but I wanted to ask the amazing people on Hacker News as well! <comment><USER2> This is a great question. Fortunately my LLC for my startup is based in a state that doesn't mandate charging sales tax for SaaS products. That being said, I do not go out my way to apply sales tax to those ordering in a state that does. I've never found a clear definition of what to do in these terms; at least, not without spending serious cash on a lawyer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hope you don't mind me asking, which state are you based in? DE?

<comment><USER2> WI.

<comment><AUTHOR> From what I gather, WI has Nexus and you should be collecting sales tax (depending on what you're providing). Do you mind me asking what you sell online?

<comment><USER2> You're right about nexus, but I sell a non-tangible SaaS product (no hard- ware, no CD download, etc). It's a grey area, but I think I'm okay. I'll verify at some point soon. It's still a side-thing w/ little to no revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are services out there such as Avalara AvaTax that will handle this for you [0]. Calculating sales tax and VAT internationally is extremely complex, it's probably something you wouldn't just want one person or lawyer doing.

Side not, this title should be prefixed with "Ask HN: Online Sales Tax – When must you charge for it?"

[0] [https://www.avalara.com/products/sales-and-use- tax/avatax-2](https://www.avalara.com/products/sales-and-use-tax/avatax-2)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I updated the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Take a peak at [https://www.taxjar.com/](https://www.taxjar.com/) You can view by state as well - [https://www.taxjar.com/states/](https://www.taxjar.com/states/)</comment>


Invest in Adam A real person, unlike Sarah Hanson - <AUTHOR>

Invest in Adam! A real person, unlike Sarah Hanson InvestinAdam.com <comment><AUTHOR> if anyone has questions or comments--please feel free to email me directly: firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Watching the Growth of Walmart Across America - <AUTHOR> http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I like how it shows slow growth at first</comment>


Ask HN: Any tips to get VC funding for a consulting business? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> So I agree with svennek that VC and consulting businesses are not generally compatible but I disagree with the logic used. Marketplaces being the exception, but in those cases those businesses aren't even categorized as a consulting business, just a broker. e.g. what most of SV calls a marketplace has for generations been brokered business, just a new/different term.

I built two different consulting groups and both were successful and made good money. One even took a modest outside investment at a point to grow faster, just not VC dollars. You can absolutely scale a consulting business into the billions of dollars of revenue, hello KPMG, IBM Global Services, etc etc.

What makes consulting businesses non-compatible with venture capital is that VC's are looking for leverage on their investment, they don't care about "scaling". Founders get hung up on "scaling" cause it is the term we use when growing the business as a catch all, scale people, sales etc. But financially speaking VC's generally look at leverage on their dollar not scaling, in fact, they want you to stay as small and lean as possible but leveraging their money to make more money while spending the smallest amount reasonable.

I am not trying to be argumentative, and I get the difference is subtle but it is a critical difference. You can research this and you will find they are different. For example, you could scale out your sales and team yet remain unprofitable, which means you didn't leverage the investment very well.

I point this out because if you can show an investor how you can leverage their dollars into more dollars, generally that's how you can get an investment. VC's don't play the game in this way for valid (and sometimes invalid) reasons but high net worth individuals do, and frankly for a consulting business a few HNI's are always a better source of funding.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. But if we notice, there is no new consulting company that has grown big like KPMG, Infosys, etc in the last decade. Is it because achieving that scale as a consulting company is no longer possible?

<comment><USER2> Yea, I think that is a reasonably fair point.

But depending on how you want to measure growth and define consulting, HP grew its services division in the last 15 years (so did Dell ~20years) or so and it went from nearly 0 to billions in revenue. They always had a little services revenue/work but not like they developed in the last 15 years or so. A lot of large consulting companies you never hear about because they stay private and aren't in the "tech" sector. IBM GS grew in the billions during the last 15 years, even as they laid off people, proving the work is there to support that value.

One thing to note, consulting does best when economies are doing poorly to moderate. When economies are booming and employment recovering consulting actually goes down, when employment levels off at "fully employed" then consulting starts to pick up a little during a boom period. It makes sense if you think about it: it is much cheaper to hire a consulting agency to work on a project or add a feature when the economy is down as hiring FTE's would increase the burden on the business permanently. Both of my consulting businesses grew the most when the economy was doing poor, dot com bust was one time and the housing & overall market crash the other. We grew massively during those times and never did as well when companies came back to feeling good about the economy and growing internally. I say this because the last 10 years has been a more or less booming economy so consulting isn't doing as well during that time period, although it is picking up now with employment numbers being so low. But if you go back into the downturns you'd see differently.

Also consulting is a big field right, if you remove the SV/tech only bubble and look at the economy as a whole tons of defense businesses are purely consulting in nature and grew from 0. And quite a few hit over a billion dollars in the past 15 years. So just depends where you look.

I think if you look at the number of new product companies that come out that do ok but never reach a billion in annual sales and compare that to consulting agencies you'd find a pretty similar trend with similar percentages.

One other point. A lot of tech is defense phobic right now for whatever their reasons are, but if you look at almost every major large consulting firm that is large they had a staple of defense and government work, both within the US and outside. Ignoring one of the largest employers because you feel principled in doing so is completely fine, but you only add to the complexity of growth at that point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Venture Capital and consulting businesses are incompatible by nature.

Venture capital is about scalability (i.e. cost per unit goes down when number of units goes up - preferably considerably...)

Consultancies are unscaleable business by design, because they sell "hours". Every employee can deliver a certain number of hours only, so per-unit (marginal) cost is flat.

And therefore VC and consultancies does not match... at all..

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea but some companies like Gigster, Pivotal managed to raise VC funding, even though they work in the same model. Any idea why?

<comment><USER4> Gigster is in many ways a market place, connecting Customers to Freelancers.

Pivotal does services, but also has products they offer the services around, makes the majority of money from licenses.</comment></comment></comment>