Why Am I So Lazy? - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/ask-polly-why-am-i-so-lazy.html <comment><USER2> > _I see this shit every day in other parents: "She hates to read!" "He's > lazy!" "She's bad at math!" You are imprisoning your kid with your words, > fuckers!_

That's spot on. It's really upsetting to hear people say that about children, especially people with authority (parents, grandparents). DON'T DO THAT!

Or, if you have to do that (!?!) at least be positive. Don't tell a kid she's bad at math, tell her she's good at math and you're surprised she doesn't get good grades -- she's a natural! all of this should be sooo easy for her! there must be something holding her back.

People tend to conform to other people's opinions of them; they will get good at math just to match the image we're projecting on them.

<comment><USER3> In think this has been shown to get worse results than praising effort.

I call my kids out for being lazy when they're being lazy.

Examples from this morning "I don't know what the second rucksack is": meaning "I can't be bothered getting it out the rucksack, you do it for me", my answer "You just want someone else to do it, stop being lazy and get it yourself". Also "I can't do it [take off my boots]": meaning "I don't want to bother, and my hands will get dirty", my answer "why should someone else get their hands dirty, just because you can't be bothered to pull" (then I demonstrated what to do, then mimicked his pretending he couldn't do it in order to demonstrate I knew what he was up to). It's not for nothing my kids get me Darth Vader merchandise!

<comment><USER4> Context. Tearing down vs empowering.

I loved volunteering in my son's classroom(s). But I admit to having rage-fits when a beautiful, sweet, talented little 6 year old boy forfeits on a task, telling me "I'm stupid, I can't do anything".

There's no question how his parents talked to him.

<comment><USER5> I am not sure I would blame the parents. As a kid I would say that I was stupid and couldn't do anything even though everyone around me was telling me how smart I was. I watch the same thing occurring in my six year old daughter now, even though I am sure nobody is saying that to her. It was a confidence thing for me. This didn't change until I was in my teens and was clearly better at certain things than others.

<comment><USER6> For me it was effort required. I was an early reader, and the first few years of elementary were a breeze, but at some point I decided if I had to work at anything, I didn't want to do it.

If I couldn't immediately answer the question, I felt was just stupid and it wasn't worth my time.

This, in spite of a family insisting I was the greatest.

<comment><USER7> > This, in spite of a family insisting I was the greatest.

Some would argue it's _because_ of your family insisting you were the greatest, in part.

>At some point I decided if I had to work at anything, I didn't want to do it. If I couldn't immediately answer the question, I felt [it] was just stupid and it wasn't worth my time.

Yep, you are a smart, great person. Your family loves you because of all of the smart, great things you do, in part. If something is hard and doesn't come naturally to you? It must be something stupid and not great. So don't worry, you are still smart and great, and people still love you. Don't try anything hard.

I'm obviously being facetious, but according to some experts (though not all, not even most), that emotional dynamic is encouraged by praising kids for their intelligence or abilities, instead of effort. I don't know how much I believe it, but that type of weird insecurity does seem fairly common among intelligent people who were extremely precocious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My wife is very similar to the person who wrote this article. She will not do anything she can procrastinate. Nothing. I personally think its some sort of insidious depression. It's destroyed our lives together, and I'm on the verge of asking for a divorce for the... 3rd time, except this time, I'm going to just file.

It is absolutely impossible to have the energy for both people in a relationship. My health is suffering from the stress. Things are so bad that I have to make sure she eats.

Nobody but me knows this side of her, she projects an image of a healthy, successful person.

edit: A marriage is a zero-sum game. Any chore she doesn't do, I am forced to. I've gradually had to give up everything that makes me happy to fund this depression of hers. I used to be a serious lifter, I was well into writing two novels, I did electronics projects, had an active night life, went to concerts. Now, I'm just a robot that does chores.

<comment><USER9> I'd say that a bad marriage is a zero-sum game, but a good marriage results in both sides ending up better than they started.

I don't know you or your wife and can't presume to tell you how or whether to fix the situation (assuming it could be), but the lesson I learned long ago regarding relationships is to honestly evaluate yourself and define your capabilities and needs (not wants, but the things you absolutely require) and to either have your partner do the same (or less optimally evaluate them yourself as best you can). If you have a need that cannot be realistically satisfied by the _current_ capabilities of your partner, or vice versa, then end the relationship as quickly as you can. Attempting to have a relationship with someone who does not satisfy your needs, or you cannot satisfy theirs, is a doomed effort and the longer you remain in the relationship the worse and more hostile it will become. Walk away as friends before you build up resentments and end up leaving as enemies.

<comment><USER8> This is great advice thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From the little "Sloth" wrote, it sounds like it's possible she might have undiagnosed ADHD.

As someone with ADHD myself, I instantly recognized the inability to get myself to start working on something until the last minute (even if I really, really want to do it) and the piles clothes (despite my propensity for cleanliness). Another hallmark of ADHD that many don't know about is bursts of almost manic productivity for random tasks or when under extreme pressure.

If she does have ADHD, Polly's answer is both unhelpful and somewhat dangerous.

<comment><USER11> I think that's a little extreme and reminds me of the problematic trend of giving psychiatric medication to anyone who asks for it. I mean, yes, there's a chance they 'actually have ADHD', but there's also a much higher chance they are one of the tremendous number of people who have trouble getting themselves to do things that aren't urgent. I'm on that list too. So are lots of people. Sloth sounds so incredibly _normal_ to me.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure "actually have ADHD" is a thing. (Edit: Emphasis on "actually", not on "ADHD". ADHD is a thing. In between "really do have it" and "really don't have it", though, is a huge grey area, and that's what I'm getting at.)

I mean, there are certainly people (maybe even most people) who function better on stimulants. And there are certainly people who don't function well when not on stimulants. But it's all a set of sliding scales, there's no clear line with "has ADHD" on one side and "just lazy" on the other.

<comment><USER13> The science is not on your side for this view. I suggest you read up to get a more informed view, Dr. Russell Barkley is a great resource, has videos all over youtube.

In the meantime, here's a quote from "International Consensus Statement on ADHD" (Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2002)

> We cannot overemphasize the point that, as a matter of science, the notion > that ADHD does not exist is simply wrong. All of the major medical as- > sociations and government health agencies recognize ADHD as a genuine > disorder because the scientific evidence indicating it is so overwhelming.

<comment><USER12> I'm not saying ADHD doesn't exist or that it's not a genuine disorder. I'm saying that there's a huge no-mans-land between "you're fine" and "woah yeah you clearly have ADHD and we should fix this."

<comment><USER14> Indeed there is, and the way psychiatry approaches it in terms of diagnosis isn't really good, either. There is a long but very insightful article on this topic that was recently featured on HN, by Scott Alexander, who's a practicing psychiatrist:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/28/adderall-risks-much- mor...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/28/adderall-risks-much-more-than- you-wanted-to-know/)

Key quote for this topic:

> But "ability to concentrate" is a normally distributed trait, like IQ. We > draw a line at some point on the far left of the bell curve and tell the > people on the far side that they've "got" "the disease" of "ADHD". This > isn't just me saying this. _It's the neurostructural literature, the the > genetics literature, a bunch of other studies, and the the Consensus > Conference On ADHD._ This doesn't mean ADHD is "just laziness" or "isn't > biological" – of course it's biological! Height is biological! But that > doesn't mean the world is divided into two natural categories of "healthy > people" and "people who have Height Deficiency Syndrome". Attention is the > same way. Some people really do have poor concentration, they suffer a lot > from it, and it's not their fault. They just don't form a discrete > population.

(Emphasis mine - pointing out the sentence which, in original article, is basically one big collection of links to references backing it up.)

<comment><USER15> Do you think that in fifty, maybe one-hundred, years people will look back at our present day understand of psychiatry and shake their heads.

<comment><USER16> I don't know how we'll view psychology, but I believe we'll look back at a number of psychological illnesses and realize that they're a result of our environmental factors much more so than they are naturally-occurring diseases. ADHD is a prime example. I believe modern life is highly over-stimulating us and a sizable subset of our society has trouble coping. Was ADHD a problem before the advent of TV, cell phones, the internet and our 24/7, immediately- available society? It's possible that people used to just go undiagnosed, but I believe it just wasn't as much of a problem as it is today.

Concentration is a skill that can be practiced. I've struggled with it myself and have found that meditation is far more effective than medication in dealing with it. Moreover, when I do retreats or backpacking trips where I'm cut off from the digital world, all my concentration issues disappear. It's made me believe that modern psychiatry is myopiclly focused on identifying and treating symptoms and largely ignores the avoidable causes of those symptoms.

<comment><USER14> > _It 's made me believe that modern psychiatry is myopiclly focused on > identifying and treating symptoms and largely ignores the avoidable causes > of those symptoms._

I disagree with that, even though I agree a lot of mental issues are heavily environmental. The reason psychiatry tries to work around them is that the environment of modern civilization is what we have, it's not going to change (easily), and in the meantime, people need to live somehow. Backpacking retreats are a cool hack if you can afford it regularly, but most people can't - they get maybe one longer stretch of free time a year.

The environment we live in is wholly unlike the environment we're adapted to. I'm not sure if we can _or want to_ get meaningfully closer to the old days to alleviate our mental pains - for all our adaptations, the ancestral environment _sucked hard_ compared to today, and modern civilization fixed at least as much as it broke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is interesting for this type of thing - mindfulness meditation too. Both are helpful at gaining clarity around overgeneralizations we make about ourselves. In meditation it's very common to reach a point of realization that 'what we are' is not equal to the labels we attach to ourselves.

Both cause a kind of short-circuiting of the "automatic thoughts" we have in response to emotional triggers. In cognitive behavioral therapy, something like procrastination is addressed by listing all of the thoughts you have in response to the thing you're avoiding, identifying irrationalities, and forming rational responses. It can be very effective at easing anger, fear, sadness, and lack of motivation.

With mindfulness, over time it's possible to begin decoupling your true self from all of the labels. This is also known as "ego death", and can be somewhat painful and uncomfortable - the ego tends to fight back when it feels you letting go of it. In deep meditation it can be almost frightening to experience the ego disappear; we go through most of our lives thinking we _are_ the labels we've associated with ourselves. To let go of the labels can feel like letting go of yourself. Blissful meditation is a state of just being; no labels.

I recommend checking out the book "Feeling Good" if you want to know more about CBT, and there are tons of resources on mindfulness, but Zen Mind Beginner's Mind is great (as well as most of Alan Watts' lectures you can find on YouTube).

<comment><USER18> CBT is good, but actually I would not recommend CBT for laziness. It can help with other things for sure - such as self disturbances, idealizations, and acceptance. It may even be considered a good foundation - But, it does not challenge the fundamental drivers of your life that induce laziness. At least it did not for me.

Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (ACT) was created, IIRC, from seeing people go through CBT but still suffer from emotions & avoidance. While it overlaps with CBT in some ways, it identifies things like the way language shapes our thinking, and proposes we lead by our values instead of by our emotions. Be present in the moment, accept your feelings but don't justify your behavior by them, and do what matters.

I only figured I'd mention, because I recently learned about ACT after being an advocate for CBT, and coming to see where they work and where they don't.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Maybe she is not lazy at all. Maybe she just doesn't want to work on things that don't motivate or interest her. It is my ultimate goal to never have to work on things that don't interest me if only I can figure out a way to automate all of that ;)

The fact that she has succeeded in getting A's with waiting until the last minute and not putting in much effort, indicates that she is very smart. I have noticed that really smart people seem to lack motivation and get bored very easily. The two closest people to me are like this. The thing is though, when they find something that does interest them, there is no stopping them. They turn into the hardest working people around.

<comment><USER20> Agreed. Lazy is lacking the desire to achieve what one considers worth achieving. If tasks like cleaning and laundry are accomplishments worth less within one's mental value system than, say, the feeling of spending time enjoying an excellent TV show then choice is clear.

The key to turning around my perceived lazyness, personally, is about trying to control the value of what I spend my time on.

<comment><USER21> Thanks for this comment, I really really agree with this sentiment and you put it really nicely in words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> When I was failing classes in college, I had a conversation with a dean who suggested that I subconsciously didn't want to be there, and that I was committing academic self-sabotage as a result. This struck me as an extravagant, bizarre theory. (Cynically, I also wonder if she was trying to convince me to voluntarily leave the college so that I wouldn't ding their graduation rate.)

I tend to be suspicious of this kind of move, where what seems like a character flaw is explained away as something more benign. In the article in question, the author suggests that the woman writing in is not really lazy, but has been holding back out of fear that she might disappoint herself. But why can't she just be lazy? I don't doubt that there are people who have the kind of subtle psychology that the author suggests. But I wonder if we're too eager to accept such explanations because they are more comforting than more straightforward, harsher ones.

<comment><USER23> What does it mean to be "lazy"? Why are some people lazy, and others not? Why are people lazy with regards to certain things and not others?

Ignoring all of these questions and simply considering laziness to be a fundamentally characteristic is highly unsatisfying and, dare I say, lazy.

Maybe the authors explanation is wrong, but she offers a potential explanation. Your proposal is simply that 'she is lazy because she is lazy' which offers no explanatory power.

<comment><USER24> >What does it mean to be "lazy"?

A few months ago my little brother was taking an introductory CS class. I warned him not to procrastinate his assignments, because you can't hurry programming. Nine women can't make a baby in one month, etc.

I think "laziness" is similar: it's an emergent phenomenon to be debugged, not a single "thing" to be attacked with more-of something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wish this advice mentioned the importance of ruling out issues like ADHD first, especially the inattentive type which is often underdiagnosed in women. I really relate to OPs description, and if she does have an exectutive functioning disorder that makes task prioritization inadequate and non- stimulating activities unrewarding to a massive extent, it wont be simply a matter of "overcoming fear" to start directing herself in a way that is more satisfying. If anything, it's a recipe for depression and frustration to try to act on advice like this if you have untreated ADHD.

</comment><comment><USER25> Warning - rant.

I wish HN would ban BS psychology articles. There are real, scientific, actionable steps to understanding perceived motivational deficit and this article doesn't get close to them. It retreads stigmatizing labels, regurgitates useless advice, and provokes high confidence low value anecdotes.

1\. Motivation is a chemical state.

You can induce motivation _generically_ through dopamine reuptake inhibitors. Why do you think Adderall makes you clean your room? It's not a sudden hatred for dust, it's that your baseline motivation to accomplish any task is enhanced and you're in a task rich environment with a messy room. Many other interesting chemical pathways and interventions exist to directly change the frequency and nature of task initiation performance and completion.

2\. Environment strongly impacts internal chemical state.

Take an "addicted" rat and put her into a rich environment and the apparently highly motivating cocaine reward looses its attraction. Take a minimally athletic human and put a bear behind them and they will run.

In neither of the above does a person need to re-evaluate their life and identity, utter crap.

My point here is that HN has an unusual respect for technically interesting and accurate news. It's not all gold, but it seems to favor factual pieces over largely emotional and unproductive arguments. Pop-psychology and feel good generic advice blogs are firmly in that second category. Their value has not advanced since the 50s and we should start seeing them as the kind of harmful, anti-scientific, community deviding memes they are.

End rant.

<comment><USER26> How about banning BS psychology HN comments, too?

It sounds like you're basically talking about ego depletion, which has come under fire in the past few years, with what little evidence there was for it coming into doubt:

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

<comment><USER25> I respect the spirit of your response but no. Here are some interesting studies.

One of many candidate drug evaluations - [https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/17/12/2045/2910067](https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/17/12/2045/2910067)

Dosage dependant effects and tolerance - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2530095/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2530095/)

Environment protecting against addiction - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22157144/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22157144/)

Edit - Couldn't find a good source for the bear thing. Apologies!

<comment><USER27> Reductionist arguments based on narrowly-scoped rodent studies are not appropriate in the context of long-term human motivation.

"Motivation is a chemical state" is a tautology in the context of psychology. Every human behavior and emotion derives from the chemical state of the brain. If someone is chronically unsatisfied with their life, would you reduce their concerns to "Happiness is a chemical state"? Stating as much does not add value to the discussion, nor is it actionable.

Likewise, in the context of human motivation it's not relevant to discuss rodent lever-pushing behavior following acute administration of large doses of high-potency DAT inhibitors. If someone is unhappy, would you provide links to studies showing that rodent display increased liking behaviors after administration of a potent opioid?

Stimulants like Adderall do induce generic motivation in the short-term, but that's not anyone is discussing here. Implying that stimulants are a source of motivation is dangerous advice. The motivational effects are largely temporary, and quickly give way to tolerance. Note that the attention- improving effects mostly remain in this case.

Drug abusers who seek motivation-boosting effects from stimulants either give up after tolerance sets in, or they settle into patterns of dose escalation in a futile attempt to outrun tolerance.

Dopaminergic stimulant abusers often have extremely high motivation during their binges, but it does not translate to anything useful after marathon obsessive cleaning sessions or internet binges. That's because motivation, in the context of what we're discussing here, is far more complex than just modulating your brain's dopaminergic systems with chemicals. Motivation is a much broader topic that involves discipline, goal-oriented behavior, prioritization, self-reflection, and many other complex phenomena that can't be reduced into a singular brain chemical like dopamine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This was an article that I read and pleasantly winced as the author called out not only my weak choices, but my reasoning for them.

I understand this article isn't for everyone, or maybe even most people, but it's for sure the thing I needed to read now.

</comment><comment><USER29> As someone who used to be much like the asker and is now a little more like the answerer, I cannot recommend this answer enough! It is so insightful and well-put.

Treat it as breadcrumbs from someone farther along on the journey of growth and self-discovery.

<comment><USER30> Indeed, the part about overachieving relatives hit home also. Mine have big houses, lots of cars, and a big screen in every room. I'm not interested in any of that but would like to meet them a bit closer in their direction, i.e. motivation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm not sure how this got here, but wow, Heather Havrilesky is still around. She wrote for Suck in the early days of the web.

[http://www.suck.com/fish/contributors/havrilesky/](http://www.suck.com/fish/contributors/havrilesky/)

<comment><USER32> Oh, man, I didn't even read the byline, and didn't guess that the Polly in Dear Polly is Polly Esther. Damn I miss her Suck column.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have a theory that the reason I am so lazy is because being a programmer teaches me to find the fastest short cut way to do things.

Actually the less code I use to get a task done the better the code is and I get a dopamine hit.

Also, if I write a great script that saves me hours on a boring manual task, I get another dopamine hit.

As a 10x coder I wonder if all these dopamine hits (20+ years) have short circuited my brain and made me want to do everything with the least amount of effort as possible.

Or, maybe I'm just lazy ;)

</comment><comment><USER34> I tried to read this but I couldnt, thats how lazy I am.

<comment><USER35> But you _did_ manage to write this comment! Someone else could have been way too lazy for that, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It seems a little ridiculous that the author of the response would know that the "Sloth" isn't actually lazy but really afraid. Especially when the author also tells the "Sloth" to ignore what other people have said about them.

Maybe I'm missing the bigger picture, but how is the author not just another one of the squirrels she describes?

<comment><USER37> It does read a bit like what you would hear a "psychic" write in response to a short question, such a long response seems an unreasonably confident response without any more back and forth between the two.

I'm actually a bit surprised so many people here are quickly falling into conclusions about what was and wasn't said when it doesn't seem like it has been explored enough to have anything conclusive determined from it..

But then it's also just an essay meant to speak to certain people and not for everyone in a popular magazine, so eh.

<comment><USER14> My immediate impression was that both texts are written by the same person. But then again, the "Sloth" section rings _way_ too true for it to be something just set up for analyzing in the latter part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I used to be lazy but then I started using Pomodoro, Fasting, Keto, Going to the Gym, Test Driving Development and microdosing with psilocybin. And I deleted Facebook and quit using Google in favor of Duck Duck Bing.

Now I'm just crazy but no one can accuse me of laziness.

</comment><comment><USER39> Weirdly, a management book - a sense of urgency by John P. Kotter - was also one of the best book to get things done in my personal life as well.

A quick summary: It's kind of easy, if you don't feel a true sense of emergency, you'll natuaraly not do it.

</comment><comment><USER40> > You're choosing a lifestyle of avoidance and low expectations.

What's wrong with that?

Some people have laid their heart open to the benign indifference of the universe and are just like: "what's the point?"

<comment><USER41> There is nothing wrong with that. But in this case there is, because it doesn't make her happy.

<comment><USER3> You can choose then to try to become happy with it, or to change it. The parents point may have been that there are options.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> 'I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.'

\-- Kurt Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord (1878-1943), Commander-in-Chief of the Reichswehr

<comment><USER43> "I drink wine...and know things."

<comment><USER44> Am I right when I say that's Tyrion Lannister? :)

<comment><USER3> Pretty sure it's GRR Martin!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This may be relevant: "'I Thought I Was Lazy': The Invisible Day-To-Day Struggle For Autistic Women" [https://theestablishment.co/i-thought-i-was- lazy-the-invisib...](https://theestablishment.co/i-thought-i-was-lazy-the- invisible-day-to-day-struggle-for-autistic-women-6268515175f3)

<comment><USER46> Could disorganized thought and executive issues in ones 20/30ies be foretelling of some form of dementia in 50/60ies, like frontotemporal dementia?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Being lazy is natural and it is what pushes humanity forward. We don't want to do things, so we try to work on it less in the future - automating things, improving efficiency etc.

Being "lazy" about some things is good for you. Do not focus much on stuff which is not very important for you personally.

<comment><USER48> Did you read the article? The premise of her question is that she thinks she is lazy AND she is not satisfied with that. Clearly, being "lazy" is not good if your laziness makes you unhappy.

<comment><USER47> What if the laziness is not a problem, but feeling unhappy because of this laziness? Why you should be unhappy? Billions of people are lazy and they love it.

There are lot of people preaching that being "efficient" all your life is what you should aim for and, weirdly, everyone accepts this as unquestionable truth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> > Both the cynic and the underachiever are afraid of sticking their necks out > and becoming who they deeply, passionately want to become, for fear of > looking stupid or failing.

I have also experienced this for an equal but opposite reason. Not a fear of failure but a fear of success, either because it feels undeserved or because of the responsibility that might come with it.

To quote that thing that Mandela didn't say:

> Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we > are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most > frightens us.

> We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?

> Actually, who are you not to be?

</comment><comment><USER50> The good kind of lazy, is actually often just being very efficient.

</comment><comment><USER51> Oblomov by Goncharev..

</comment><comment><USER52> Antipathy, depression, mild burnout, career dissatisfaction, and cannabis.

</comment><comment><USER53> Motivational essays are this are great for some people. Others, on the other hand, are persuaded to avoid seeking help for medical (mental health, hormonal, etc) problems that are wrecking their lives. Overmedication is a problem, yes, but this particular field is catastrophically underdiagnosed because its problems have come to be seen as moral failings and the _fault_ of the sufferer. If you are so "lazy" that you have trouble with day-to-day life, you do not need to "man up" or "reject your self-image". You need to talk to a physician. Such problems are well within their purview. Modern psychiatry has infinitely better cognitive tricks than the moralizing platitudes in motivational essays. If you're really lucky, your physician will guess two- thirds of your symptoms before you describe them, diagnose you with a particular neurochemical deficiency, and prescribe you a medication that, in the space of a week, does more to help you with your problems than you'd managed in your entire life to date.

TL;DR: You aren't qualified to condemn every "lazy" person on the planet, so quit it with the victim-blaming. Some people need this kind of advice but you aren't the person that should be giving it. Let the professionals do it, because they can, first, do no harm.

<comment><USER54> You're discounting the value of moral thinking. You can reduce everything to a medical issue, because all human behavior is indeed biologically caused, but you are failing to consider that blame and fault and other moral concepts are exactly the kind of thing the mind is responsive to. Why are you so hostile to those, but so eager to pump people full of drugs, designed and dispensed on the basis of our very poor understanding of the the brain[1].

[1] Which is not to say that there's no place for psychiatric medication, but they should not be the first course of action.

<comment><USER55> Because if you do need that drug or have condition, shaming you instead so that other people are scared and less lazy is unethical.

Because blaming and shaming people for their mental conditions makes treatment harder.

Because if we are talking about people who tried to change and did not succeeded multiple times, adding more shame solves literally nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> To be followed later in life by, "I know I am lazy"..

</comment><comment><USER57> I wonder whether the author considered what s/he/it compares self against. A manic programmer can go for two days without sleep before collapse. Its extremely unhealthy and socially isolating and to Try to become like that is literally nuts. Ask yourself what all those who archive your dream performance don't have before going for it</comment>


Sudan, last male northern white rhino, dies in Kenya - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43468066 <comment><USER2> I've said this before on this forum, but I'll reiterate it here since it's relevant. As a Kenyan I can advise if there are any endangered species indigenous to Kenya that you would like to see, your best bet is to just go see them before they die out. The most prominent poacher in our country is the president's mother, Mama Ngina Kenyatta, and she's been poaching relentlessly ever since the current president's father was our President[1]. No media company will talk about this if they want to retain their license to report in Kenya, but Google is your friend on this topic. Given this fact, I'd also advice well wishers to save their money donating to our conservation efforts, it's a pretty lost cause given the circumstances, unless you're the most glass half full type of guy. [1] [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/elephant- appeal...](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/elephant-appeal-few- are-willing-to-say-just-how-bad-the-poaching-crisis-is-9035157.html)

<comment><USER3> Related link – NY Times article about Kenyatta family (including Mama Ngina Kenyatta, who is almost 85 now) being involved in poaching, from 1975: [https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/22/archives/elephants-are- de...](https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/22/archives/elephants-are-declining- rapidly-in-africa-african-elephants.html)

<comment> 52-6F-62 They were also just implicated in the Cambridge Analytica story from Channel 4.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The death of a (sub-)species.

We are destined to see more of this in our lifetimes, given how some people treat the natural world and our animal kingdom neighbours..

Other sub-species of rhinos, and even elephants, may not be far behind.

But we are making progress. In the 1980s, it is estimated that over 600,000 elephants were killed by poachers in less than 10 years.

We are now "down" to 20,000 killed per year by poaching. But sadly, this is still more than are actually born in a year, so it's not quite enough progress, and there is still much work to be done.

If you feel like supporting conservation and education efforts to help with this progress, here are a few places to start:

The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[0], The Amboseli Trust[1], Save the Rhino[2], and of course the World Wildlife Fund[3] if you want to support conservation in a broader sense.

0: [https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/](https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/)

1: [https://www.elephanttrust.org/](https://www.elephanttrust.org/)

2: [https://www.savetherhino.org/](https://www.savetherhino.org/)

3: [https://support.worldwildlife.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=...](https://support.worldwildlife.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=main_monthly&s_src=AWE1806OQ18299A01179RX)

<comment><USER5> I was at the Natural History Museum in London on Saturday and astounded to learn the Mastodon was still around 13,000 years ago. I started looking online and realized that many of these animals I thought were super prehistoric are more recent that I thought, including the Mammoth (present until 4,500 years ago). The plaque suggested a bunch of reasons for the Mastodon extinction but one of them included hunting. We (our species) have been at this for a long time. Perhaps if the Earth was far larger they would stand a better chance.

<comment><USER6> More recently, the North American passenger pigeon. Billions to extinct in 19th century... [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon)

<comment><USER7> Twentieth century, as Martha (probably the last member of the species, although the standard post-extinction cryptic sightings continued into the 1930s) died in 1914.

If anybody wants to read an extremely complete book on the subject, it's hard to do better than A Feathered River Across The Sky[0]. It's well written and the science is sound.

[0]: [https://www.amazon.com/Feathered-River-Across-Sky- Extinction...](https://www.amazon.com/Feathered-River-Across-Sky- Extinction/dp/1620405342)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is very sad but natural selection now is unfortunately like this now. Unless you are small and can eat human garbage or we care about your species in some extend (Cows, Pigs, Horses, Dogs, Birds, Cats and so on) you are going to become extinct in the next couple of hundred years. Which is depressing to say the least. Even if technology brings them back, it will be for zoos only for a very long time because the real problem is that their environment is gone, so it's not even worth it unless we have that problem fixed.

I am a bachelor in Biology besides the computer degree and this is something I perceive as a deep loss not because of this specific specimen but because of the trend it again confirms. We have modified the key features a species need to survive because of the way we are and big beautiful beasts like this are essentially doomed unless we change our ways, which I am very pessimist about.

I guess this is something we will need to get used to, it is going to happen more times in the future, our grand children might be the first ones to not see a live elephant or giraffe animals so common in cartoons and they toys will be like dinosaurs for them. It's terrible to think about it.

<comment><USER4> This is not really from natural selection.

Rhinos have been killed _by humans_ by the hundreds of thousands over the last 30 years.

There's nothing natural about that.

<comment><USER9> Humanity is not natural apparently?

<comment><USER4> Humans using machine guns and grenades to mow down entire packs of rhinos and elephants in order to use chainsaws to remove horns and tusks from corpses?

Nope, that's not natural in my book.

<comment><USER10> Their point probably is that humans are a part of nature as well because we naturally evolved from animals, and that moved us to the very top of the food pyramid. Sometimes animals evolve bigger teeth to survive - and humans evolved bigger brains.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Having just read Douglas Adams' "Last Chance to See" with its part about northern white rhinos, it's especially disheartening to read this now...

</comment><comment><USER12> You guys should consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights these poachers. The founder, Damien Mander[2], is an Australian ex spec-ops sniper who is using his military experience to train the park rangers since they, unlike the poachers, tend to be poorly equipped and trained as well as understaffed.

There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5][6].

[0] [http://www.iapf.org/en/](http://www.iapf.org/en/)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti- Poaching_Fo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti- Poaching_Foundation)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander)

[3] [http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org](http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org)

[4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust)

[5] [http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp...](http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=318)

[6] [http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb](http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb)

</comment><comment><USER13> Of coirse it's sad, but I'm more amazed by the fact that man can manage to wipe out a whole species for traditional medicice (which I assume doesn't work in this case?) and dagger handles.

<comment><USER14> Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. Wikipedia attributes poaching pretty much entirely to demand for rhino horn in "traditional Asian medicine".

> Rhino horn can fetch tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram on the black > market in Asia and, depending on the exact price, can be worth more than its > weight in gold.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I'm not sure either. (The misspellings, perhaps?)

From what I've read, there has been some pretty decent progress in reducing demand for elephant ivory, which has a similar issue in Asia, due to various information campaigns. ([https://www.economist.com/news/china/21678838-remarkable- pro...](https://www.economist.com/news/china/21678838-remarkable-progress- ivory-and-shark-fin-none-rhino-horn-elephants-fight-back)) Sadly, this seems to have not worked for the rhino.

<comment><USER13> > Yeah, I'm not sure either. (The misspellings, perhaps?)

Cell phone :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The one bit of positivity I get out of this is, well at least white rhino poaching is over.

(Unless they're revived by cloning, as one person mentioned, in which case either they remain in captivity or poaching continues.)

</comment><comment><USER17> Indian Javan Rhino. Extinct around 1920

Vietnamese Javan Rhino. Extinct 2010

Northern White Rhino. Functionally extinct 2018

Sumatran Rhino. 100 animals remaining.

Javan Rhino. 63 animals remaining in a single population. None of them on zoos.

</comment><comment><USER18> Seems kinda crazy to me that you'd put down a rhino that is the last male of its kind. Even one in pain. Why not induce a coma, and keep those gametes alive?

<comment><USER19> Why should an animal have to go through that, when it's human who caused it? He does not deserve that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is cloning an option?

<comment><USER21> They will attempt to use IVF resurrect the species ..

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/20/last- mal...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/20/last-male-white- rhino-is-put-down)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can't wait for space colonization where we'd create an Earth-like planet with all organisms, but humans.

<comment><AUTHOR> You'd still need some human control, to stop invasive species (eg the Kudzu vine comes to mind) from killing off other species.

<comment><USER23> Human control is the exact reason why Kudzu is an invasive species.

<comment><AUTHOR> Kudzu is an invasive species because it out-competes other types of flora. It is not an invasive species purely because of human control. True, humans have helped it affect other species by moving them, but if Kudzu somehow (perhaps a form of geological change happens in thousands of years like a land bridge, or continental shift, or maybe the seeds are simply moved by some migrating population of bird) reached these new ecosystems by it's own means, it would still be an invasive species.

My point is that unless there is some way to restrict which 'biomes' different organisms can inhabit, some invasive species will outcompete others, particularly if some less competitive species are evolved for specific niche environments only found on Earth. This segregation is not likely to happen naturally as it has on earth, and thus the idealistic diversity and preservation that yohann305 was hoping for wouldn't occur without human intervention and control.

<comment><USER24> An invasive species is by definition something not native to an area.

>if Kudzu somehow (perhaps a form of geological change happens in thousands of years like a land bridge, or continental shift, or maybe the seeds are simply moved by some migrating population of bird) reached these new ecosystems by it's own means, it would still be an invasive species.

If the plant migrated on it's own than that area is now its native area.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, an invasive species is one that is an alien to the area and that is likely to cause damage to the ecosystem it is now present in. [1] Human influence is the main cause, but species may get there by other means. [2] Transport vector is unimportant to the definition of invasive species or not. One study considers a definition where species which are native but that are causing ecological damage could be considered an 'invasive species'. [3]

Also from [3]:

> Invading propagules begin as residents in a potential donor region (stage > 0), some of which are taken into the transport vector (stage I), usually by > humans. If these propagules survive transport and release to become > introduced (stage II), they have the potential to establish (stage III) in a > novel environment.

Note that 'stage I' notes 'usually by humans', not 'by humans'. Ie. a species which uses some natural phenomena as a transport vector can still be considered an invasive species. [1] says similar - "Human actions are the primary means of invasive species introductions." \- implying that non-human methods are also possible for invasive species introductions.

It's nonsensical to say that as soon as something migrates using a natural phenomena that it becomes a 'native' to that area.

[1] [https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml](https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml) [2] [https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/toolkit/vectors.shtml](https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/toolkit/vectors.shtml) [3] [http://www.esf.edu/efb/parry/502_reading/colautti2004.pdf](http://www.esf.edu/efb/parry/502_reading/colautti2004.pdf)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


World's First Supersonic Drone Ready For Its Maiden Flight - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2013/06/18/worlds-first-supersonic-drone-ready-for-its-maiden-flight/

<comment><USER2> "First supersonic drone"? No love for the Lockheed D-21?</comment>


Ask HN: Privacy alternatives to Xbox? Any Indie games console? - <AUTHOR> I have a Xbox One which basically won't let me play without internet. It wants my login, it wants to share my details with every game publisher, I have to create logins with them and receive commercial mail. Its infinitely tough to find games with No ads and No fees(I don't like spending money on games. I am happy with Hobbyist's developing games).<p>Any suggestions for Xbox alternatives? <comment><USER2> Intel NUC w/ DRM-free games from HumbleBundle, GOG if you're into supporting companies with refund policies that a judge labelled 'criminal' when Steam was confronted for inventing reasons you can't have a refund.

Valve was found to have willfully stolen from an estimated 20,000 people and were fined over two million dollars for it, if GOG can prove the software functions on your computer including demanding you install crap to help them prove that, they invent the right to deny what may be your legally-entitled refund.

[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/04/20/australia- fines-...](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/04/20/australia-fines-valve- over-steam-refunds/)

</comment><comment><USER3> >> Its infinitely tough to find games with No ads and No fees

Am I to understand you're asking for FOSS console games? Or even free ones? o.o

<comment><AUTHOR> yes and no. I don't need polished stuff, I just want stuff made by hobbyists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Small PC.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough.</comment></comment>


Half of China's millionaires want to leave country - <AUTHOR> http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/01/report-half-of-chinas-rich-want-to-leave/

<comment><USER2> This may add more insight: I'm Chinese (mainlander) myself and I'm not rich (student). All my friends are not rich either. Yet almost everyone wants to leave the country.

This is probably due to high real estate prices (around 1M RMB in large cities like Beijing and Shanghai for a decent apartment that can get you a girl to marry you, yet you don't really "own" the property even if you buy it. Technically the state still owns your apartment and you were just paying for "usage fee" because that's how communism/socialism works. In comparison, newly college graduates earns around 6k RMB/mo); broken health care system (probably worse than the U.S, since most of the Chinese family are relying on their only child to provide health care money when they grow older); harsh job market (simply too many people for not so many jobs, so the wage becomes low); and plus, a dim future for all of the lower income families or family without connections.

Yes you can argue that there's so many opportunities in China, but somehow we voted with our feet: everyone who has a means to leave left. Most of the famous Chinese actors are now foreign citizens or at least with a green card alike. For average families, they send their kids overseas for school. That's why you see so many Chinese students overseas, doing boring PhD degrees if they are poor or enroll as an undergrad if their family could afford. For their families, getting their kids to an overseas school is like taking the first step to a much more promising future.

<comment><USER3> The one child policy of China is pure evil. It's a wonder the forced abortions and these effects don't feature more prominently in this discussion.

<comment><USER4> And what do you propose is the alternative? Very easy to take a moral high ground when you don't have to worry about the repercussions of over population and strained resources. As the poster said themselves - too many people in China.

<comment><USER3> I don't need to propose an alternative in order to state that the imposed one child policy is evil, along with its forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Second, you can't prove overpopulation is as serious as the government claims, nor can you prove their "solution" fixes it.

Third, if it is as serious as is claimed, it will affect the world (anthropogenic environmental impact, immigration, etc...), so it's everyone's worry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This summer Forbes reported...

"China Daily reported Friday that unnatural deaths have taken the lives of 72 mainland billionaires over the past eight years. (Do the math.) Which means that if you're one of China's 115 current billionaires, as listed on the 2011 Forbes Billionaires List, you should be more than a little nervous." ([http://www.forbes.com/sites/raykwong/2011/07/25/friends- dont...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/raykwong/2011/07/25/friends-dont-let- friends-become-chinese-billionaires/)).

I wonder how much fear is playing into this desire for exodus.

<comment><USER6> This news is far from being accurate. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2806250>

<comment><USER5> Regardless if its billionaires in yuan or dollars, if there is a sentiment in China that the wealthy are being killed, it could fuel the desire to leave.

<comment><USER7> I'd expect a number of extremely rich Chinese oligarchs have been shot for treason, as some forms of corruption are punishable by the death penalty.

There's a lot of _really_ nasty shit that happens in China. Babies dying from additives to their milk formula, organs being stolen, farmers being driven off communes to build illegal factories, outright theft of government funds and property ... none of it is really sanctioned.

When the officials who set themselves up as feudal lords get busted, they can go down _hard_. Even if their superiors were previously turning a blind eye, if it hits Weibo (the Chinese Twitter) then things can get ugly.

<comment><USER8> > outright theft of government funds and property

Yeah most of that ends up in North America. imo They tend to buy housing in cash for their children mostly in either Vancouver or the Bay Area.

<comment><USER7> A lot of it stays in China. Officials may have a large unofficial income source (or two), which they spend on wine, women, and Karaoke (none of which officially existed, just like the money they used to pay for it, so there's no explaining to do); or food (you'll never meet a Chinese who won't think a good $500 meal isn't worth it). Or they channel some to their spouse.

A few big fish will grab a staggeringly huge amount, then run. We are talking _huge_ amounts here, though, not a Chinese millionaire looking for a house for their kids. There's a total of $120 billion missing, taken by an estimated 16,000 officials. Only the poorer ones will be buying what you would describe as a "house".

I'd think most of the Chinese buying houses for their kids are essentially legit businessmen. They probably use cash because Chinese just hate debt. They also see it as an investment, because houses are some of the only things Chinese trust - they see shares as giving a total stranger your money to play with, in the hopes that he gives you more back (I mean, have you seen what US CEOs get paid?).

<comment><USER9> That's only 7.5 million per corrupt official, which is about the cost of the houses they buy in Shaughnessy, North Vancouver and Point Grey.

<comment><USER10> Assume a Pareto distribution; it's usually a good bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is too much bias from reporters these days to work out actual trend from manufactured trends with regards to china.

Silly to say "half of china's millionaires want to leave" without saying how that percentage is different from "all chinese"...

China long ago loosened restrictions on emigration, to allow Chinese to be educated overseas and then (hopefully) return to China, so that it could benefit. I think this increase of emigration could be a natural progression of that policy (as Chinese now have a lot more ties in other countries).

The 'unaffordable housing' issue, sounds similar to Australia (Median house price is 8+X median yearly/salary), so I doubt it is a reason for leaving.

People who are saying it's "too be free", are clearly just anti-P.R.C, again, by-in-large chinese are happy/apathetic about the govt in china. Those that care about politics, join the party and have just as many rights (to vote and affect change as americans have).

Very difficult to work out 'truth' here...

</comment><comment><USER12> Note that the claimed reason is better education opportunities for their children. There is definitely a perception here in China that connections and schooling are critical for a life of success and wealth.

That said, I have my doubts they would be able to directly ask, "Do you want to emigrate?". So perhaps that is why they tacked on the education bit for plausible deniability (i.e. I love my country but my child should go to Harvard).

</comment><comment><USER13> Once you're rich enough, you become concerned with protecting that wealth and your own well-being. You want transparency from your government, rule of law (in a transparent, predictable manner) and political stability. Those are not strong points in China these days.

<comment><USER14> I think this is true. Additionally, as other commenters have mentioned, daily life in china is a bit of a health risk due to the crazy traffic, air pollution, poor food safety etc.

<comment><USER13> I forgot this - I have two friends who lived in Beijing for years but moved to LA when they had kids, in large part because the air pollution was so bad they said they could feel it in their throats when they woke up each morning if it was going to be a bad day. Nobody likes to feel like their they breathe is killing them each day.

There was a comment (I think on Top Gear, so take it with a grain) that if you drive a new Porsche through Beijing, the air coming out the tailpipe is cleaner then the air going in the front.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Remember the way America plans to compete with China is to wait for China to fail. So there are a lot of Americans straining their eyes for a glimmer of salvation. That is the context for pretty much every American story on China you see.

The reality is that Chinese rich are hedging like all the rich do. Putting 20% of your wealth in a safe investment outside your home country is not unusual. And they are gearing up to send their child overseas to the best schools they can find - just like all the other tiger economies did.

</comment><comment><USER16> The original report is here (in Chinese): [http://pic.bankofchina.com/bocappd/report/201111/P0201111015...](http://pic.bankofchina.com/bocappd/report/201111/P020111101574895209302.pdf)

Later on I'll have a read and translate any interesting parts of it. Right now it's 4 AM here, I'm coming off a long and not-very-fun debugging session, and I'm going to sleep.

There was a very similar report published about half a year ago by China Merchants Bank. HN discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2660178>

I blogged about that report and translated some portions of it at the time, see there for my thoughts on these things. my analysis in short: not many people taking concrete action, not many people leaving permanently. [http://notlearningcantonese.posterous.com/rich-emigrants- as-...](http://notlearningcantonese.posterous.com/rich-emigrants-as-shirkers- and-traitors-a-loo)

</comment><comment><USER17> The trend is definitely true, but it's been there since day one when there began to have "rich Chinese". This CNN post made it sounds like, suddenly the rich Chinese worry about them being killed or end up in jail, because they oppose the chinese government? This is laughable.

"We see too many worried entrepreneurs nowadays who are afraid that they would end up in prison for offending Chinese officials," You gotta be kidding me, most of the richest Chinese ARE the Chinese officials!! If they do end up in jail, it has much more to do with them accumulating their wealth illegally by abusing their power, than say, publicly posing a middle finger to Mr. Hu.

This article looks like just another typical heavily biased manipulative CNN crap, which throws in some data at first to make it believable, and then hijacked the real reason behind the data, adding their own interpretation. Reading CNN's news on China is just like reading Fox's news on Obama.

<comment><USER18> What do you recommend reading to find out more about what's really going on in China/South-East Asia?

<comment><USER17> I would recommend first hand observations from western expats (through their blogs probably?) that actually live in china or at least spend reasonable amount of time there. Their opinions may be biased too, but at least it can give you a bunch of mixed views that are closer to the truth.

As for traditional media, the Economist does tend to be relatively neutral, and not adding too much of their own "secret ingredients". But that's just my own opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This seems to reinforce some points made by Paul Graham in his 'How to Make Wealth' essay. Especially regarding governments not allowing individuals to accumulate wealth. <http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html>

<comment><USER20> ALL HAIL PAUL GRAHAM!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Money can buy you bigger houses, fancy clothes, new cars. But it can't buy you freedom, in China. That's why the millionaires leave, to be free.

<comment><USER21> China is quite free compared to most western countries. If you have money you are pretty much free to do as you please as long as you keep your head down. There are two types of crimes in China crimes that get you put away forever or executed and crimes that you just pay the officer for. Every regulation in China is basically a tax, you pay someone and it is solved.

<comment><USER22> That is a kind of freedom, perhaps, but it isn't liberty. China is notoriously short on liberty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Can someone enlighten me on how so many (or so few) people got so rich off of property?

<comment><USER24> Party connections.

It is how everything works in a Communist society, everything bends to the party, the people, the land, the environment. The results to each is usually the same.

<comment><USER25> For the sake of accuracy, China's had little to do with communism for decades now.

<comment><USER26> _China's had little to do with communism for decades now._

Your statement is both true and unfitting to the thread here. The truth is that the current governing policies of the Communist Party of China (CPC) are not doctrinaire communism, in the Marxist-Leninist sense, but rather "socialism with Chinese characteristics," as that party officially labels those policies. But the key political point, and the key motivation for many people wanting to leave China, is that the CPC is the sole ruling party and has been since 1949. Ideology bounces around, but the grip of the CPC on political power on all levels, and on all the major means of gaining economic power, is never relaxed. Mass media in China are subject to prepublication review by censors who are staff members ("cadres") of the CPC. The most crucial distinction between crimes that are punished and crimes that are left unpunished is whether or not the crimes threaten the rule of the CPC. And many activities that are perfectly legal here and in all civilized countries of the world, such as political dissent, are illegal in China solely because they threaten the CPC's grip on power.

I speak Chinese. From time to time I have had the opportunity to participate in seminars with Chinese journalists in the United States, out of earshot of Chinese censors. Even today, I cannot reveal the name of one journalist who once expressed a frank opinion in the hearing of several Americans who are familiar with the situation in China. He said that if the common people of China had full access to uncensored news, the Communist Party of China would fall within a week. The huge efforts that the CPC-controlled government in China makes to set up a "Great Firewall of China" to control Internet access is a sign that the government greatly fears uncensored access to news for the Chinese populace.

<comment><USER27> That's all true, but doesn't seem particularly "communist" in a relevant way--- that was _also_ true of Greece under the junta, or Spain under Franco. Wouldn't it be more accurate to just call China an authoritarian or one-party state?

Heck, even "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a bit of an anachronism these days, and the people who take the old conception of it seriously are seen as left-wingers within the government; it's closer to "one-party capitalism with Chinese characteristics"...

<comment><USER28> _doesn't seem particularly "communist" in a relevant way_

Perhaps in some academic sense. On the other hand, can you name a single national experiment with communism that didn't become authoritarian? There are certainly plenty of ugly examples.

<comment><USER27> Oh, that wasn't the angle I was going for; I'm not arguing that "real communism will work" or something. Just that it doesn't seem meaningfully different from "non-communist" authoritarian states, so the label "communist" appears to be a historical anachronism that doesn't add any real information in 2011, versus just calling it a "one-party" or "authoritarian" state. In the 1960s, at least, it added the additional bit of information that the government was attempting to suppress market economics, but that part isn't true anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is not necessarily a bad thing for China or a good thing for countries that want these millionaires. I bet after migration many of these millionaires migrate will establish companies that connect with sources inside China for outsourcing. In an economic sense, the millionaires are very much Manchurian candidates.

<comment><USER30> In Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver, you see this very clearly. Many chinese people are technically in Canada, but they never really left their home country. They create a small subcity with its own economy, and huge ties to the homeland. A great deal of them never learn English because they don't have a need for it.

<comment><USER31> Maybe for one generation, but I have two great friends who are the children of these types, and they are as American as anyone.

<comment><USER32> That is an excellent point. I have many second and third generation friends who's grandparents, and even parents have only assimilated local culture when absolutely necessary. Their children however are as 'home grown' as you like, to the point where most laugh at their for-bearers (reverse?) xenophobic behavior. This is a phenomenon not exclusive to people from the far east either. The same can be said for many families I know from eastern Europe and the Middle East.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _One quarter of China's top 1000 richest people obtained their wealth from property, compared to less than 10% among the world's 1000 richest, the report says._

Are they comparing the top-1000 richest people in China to the top-1000 richest people in the world? That's not a very good comparison. It's like comparing the top-1000 students from a single college, to the top-1000 students from every college in the entire world.

I'm not sure if the actual report makes this comparison too as I cannot read Chinese.

<comment><USER34> It makes perfect sense, as many of those who made a fortune in property probably obtained that land through party connections and/or party corruption. How else would they have obtained 'property' in China?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Not just the millionaires but many people want to too.

</comment><comment><USER36> Since this is Hacker News and all, I'll pose a question: we had that news story on how few Indian hackers and tech startups there are, what about in China? Are any of these millionaires profiting off things like Baidu is with web tech working for the government?

</comment><comment><USER37> Hmmm, it's really too bad the US doesn't have enough sense to invite more of these people into our country.

<comment><USER38> There's also the little problem of China letting them out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Common man also want to leave China [http://www.rediff.com/business/slide- show/slide-show-1-tech-...](http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide- show-1-tech-apple-workers-forced-to-sign-no-suicide-pledge/20110504.htm)

</comment><comment><USER40> Just for the record, that photo isn't really China. It's SAR Hong Kong. Different legal systems, different story.

</comment><comment><USER41> THIS IS A PROBLEM

</comment><comment><USER42> Is the real problem that lots of party functionaries without much money has power and little oversight? So they can press money out of the local rich, without repercussions?

Or is political uncertainty the real problem -- the political climate next month can be halfway back to the cultural revolution?

Or a third alternative?

Edit: Word choice, for clarity.

<comment><USER43> Welcome to a land where the local rich can press money out of party functionaries!

<comment><USER8> I'm not so sure about that. If that were true, I don't think the local rich would be so eager to join the party membership.

<comment><USER43> You don't have to join the party here - just throw a few $1000 at a fundraising dinner to get the guy offering the biggest tax breaks elected.

<comment><USER8> > just throw a few $1000 at a fundraising dinner to get the guy offering the > biggest tax breaks elected.

I'm confused. Are we talking about China or Taiwan?

<comment><USER43> The USA

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Atlas wants to shrug.

</comment><comment><USER45> Hmmm.....I can't disagree with the contents of the post. Yet I think it is a piece written to distract from the issues facing our own nation by doing an implicit juxtaposition between China and the U.S.

I am of the opinion that we should spend less time denigrating others and more time having open and honest discussion AND reporting of the issues facing us here in the U.S. Pointing out issues and flaws in others in now way helps fix the flaws in ourselves.

<comment><USER46> This is a global site, not a U.S. forum.

<comment><USER47> It doesn't always appear that way.</comment></comment></comment>


NumPy 1.16 is the last release to support Python 2.7 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/doc/release/1.16.0-notes.rst <comment><USER2> Just rip the band-aid off. Some of the async stuff in Python 3 is awesome.

A bit curious that 3.4 has been dropped, as that's the stock Python 3 shipped for CentOS 7.

<comment><USER3> Debian also does not have anything above python 3.4 on the stable packages branch

3.6 has been dev and test since 2016

<comment><USER4> Why in the world is Debian like this? Their buggy latexmk is also from 2015.

Somehow I feel like every system that I want to keep updated stays on an old version, and every system that I want to keep pinned to some version just force-feeds me its updates...

<comment><USER5> Because it's the stable branch, and it gets no major version updates for anything after release, nor any new packages, just bugfixes to the current version.

There is backports, and I've thought about maintaining a newer Python interpreter in backports (when I was working for a company using Jessie and trying to use a Debian stack for everything and sort of wanting async syntax). You could introduce python3.6 or python3.7 as a new package in backports. But it would be extremely hard to update the Python _modules_ in Debian to the newer version, too, because there's just a "python3-foo" package for each module, so you'd either have to recompile all binary modules and patch them to work on the newer Python as necessary (and patch anything using async or await as regular identifiers....), or you'd have to introduce an interpreter that intentionally wasn't compatible with modules installed as Debian packages. (Or you could introduce an interpreter that tried its best and failed randomly, which seems worse than either option.) I'm personally sympathetic to wanting to get /usr/bin/python3.6 from my OS even if the only useful thing to do is put a virtualenv on top, but I think it makes sense to just install Python yourself into /usr/local at that point.

Re latexmk, it looks like the volunteer maintainer hasn't updated it since 2015, and there's a culture of not stepping on people's toes and waiting a while before assuming they're inactive or no longer care. But it's been updated in the development release. The current changelog [https://metadata.ftp- master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/lat...](https://metadata.ftp- master.debian.org/changelogs/main/l/latexmk/latexmk_4.61-0.1_changelog) has a bunch of "NMU" entries, non-maintainer uploads.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the explanation.

Re latexmk: so am I getting the development release on Arch? I get the 2018 version with texlive-core.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, I mean that the volunteer maintainer of the latexmk package in Debian hasn't updated it since 2015. Arch probably has a newer version from the latexmk authors (and I think Arch does not have the same culture of individual package maintainers, in general).

<comment><USER4> ..Oh. Wow. Do distros not care if their packages are updated for 3+ years? I'd have expected half their entire job is to make sure package maintainers are actually maintaining packages...

<comment><USER6> Eventually such packages get removed (usually when they stop building for whatever reason). But if the package still works, having an old version of it is still better than not having anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When can we start calling Python 2.7 legacy code?

<comment><USER8> EDIT: My comment is grossly misunderstood and I cannot delete my comment. I did not imply python 3 causes bad code, I was trying to tell a story about how "our" python 2 code is handsome and python 3 code is ugly; sorta implying python2 is not necessarily legacy code. I have absolutely no problem with python 3 and prefer it over python 2. I do not want to start a 2 vs 3 flamewar please just ignore this comment.

===

My company has >1 million line of python 2.7. About 1.5 year ago we managed to pass our test harness (about 80% line coverage) in python 3. At the moment we can't do that but we believe if we tried hard for a few weeks we can do it again too. I don't know how we define "legacy code" but I code in this codebase everyday and the code is actually very pretty and understandable. We also have a python 3 project (only a few thousand line of code) and god that code is definitely ugly as shit. Even after python2 goes unmaintained, I will still think our python3 code looks more like legacy.

<comment><USER9> If your Python 2 code is clean and your Python 3 is ugly, I don't know what the hell you are doing. They are almost the same language. Are you trolling?

<comment><USER10> Probably the Python 3 code was rushed and/or written by an inexperienced programmer. That would just be a coincidence, nothing to do with Python 2 or 3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The only thing keeping me on Python 2.7 is Apache Beam, but it's becoming increasingly painful and I'm close to just using a different technology rather than deal with making all my code py2 compatible in 2019...

<comment><USER12> For those interested, you can track Beam Python 3 support progress here:

[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1251](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1251)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Right now I don't think that python2.7 is very well supported in 1.16. Had to build a docker the other day that uses python2.7 and while building the docker it got numpy 1.16 from the pip mirror. Now import of numpy failed so that I had to revert to the previous version of numpy.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Numpy 1.16 is good enough" \- Me in 2029

<comment><USER15> Clinging on to the past for dear life..

<comment><USER16> Or, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

<comment><USER15> Well, it's open-source so you're free to volunteer your resources and maintain it yourself

<comment><USER16> Well, it's dependent upon by lots of huge companies, so I'm sure it will forked and maintained anyway well beyond 2020...

Strongly wishing things to die doesn't make it so...

<comment><USER15> Great, so everyone's happy!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why is Keanu Reeves everywhere these days? - <AUTHOR> https://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/movies/article/Why-is-Keanu-Reeves-everywhere-these-days-14056993.php <comment><USER2> Keanu Reeves is a genuinely nice guy. He gave away 50 million to the unsung heroes of The Maxtrix. In addition, he donated millions to cancer research as well. I am glad that he is everywhere.

[https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/200305283652/keanu...](https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/200305283652/keanu/reeves/matrix/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I personally would NEVER feel the need to ask this question. Keanu Reeves rules.</comment>


Entire U.S. Stealth Fighter Fleet Grounded - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/entire-u-s-stealth-fighter-fleet-grounded/

<comment><USER2> We still have the stealth bombers though, right?

<comment><USER3> Sort of? No more FA117 or SR71, but the B2 is still in service.

<comment><USER4> With a note that the SR71 was a semi-stealthy reconnaissance plane, not a bomber. I don't think it was actually that stealthy given that it was shot at regularly, it just flew high and fast enough to get out without harm.

<comment><USER5> From my understanding of stealth technology (which I must admit is fairly limited), the radar cross-section is merely reduced not eliminated completely. So they could still be detected it was just that the plane might be confused with other common interference. However, I assume in the case of the SR-71, the planes were flying so fast to begin with there was no confusing them for anything, despite of the reduced radar-cross section.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why are we hearing about this in a public magazine? Shouldn't this be need-to- know information?

<comment><USER7> If I operated a fleet of stealth fighters, this is what I'd tell people too.

"Nope, that blip can't be a stealth fighter, they're all grounded."</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Time to walk away? - <AUTHOR> Today I have found myself at a crossroads, first a little background. I have been building a thing for about 18 months on and off. About 3 months ago I decided to partner up with someone and go all in - my partner is based on the other side of the globe, so as part of him coming on board we met and spent some time together - including pitching to VCs. As part of this partnership we bestowed the title of CTO on me and CEO on him. We have worked on perfecting our message etc and can really hit a good pitch, the problem comes from commitment - I am working on "thing" full time and also doing some freelance to pay the bills/feed my family. CEO can see this so advised me about 4 weeks ago he was going to quit his day job so that he could focus on "thing", however since that day there has been one excuse after another for not doing it. I have been responsible for all research, tech poc's, pitch deck, basically everything other than meeting and setting up pitches. A few days ago we got a "no" from a seed VC - we had pitched them in November and had been through full DD and met all the partners, so I think we were kinda hopeful (but thats a post for another time). Now I was not involved in the "no" phone call so I am not certain what was said - however I have been told by CEO guy that "They don't like that the R&D will happen in <other country>". I trust CEO guy but I do suspect he is being given an excuse, I think the real reason is that the VC can see that the CEO guy doesn't have any passion for what we are doing - if we have a meeting then nothing happens (like a thank you email) <comment><USER2> There's always a risk with bringing someone onboard to work with you. The fact is, while many people say that they want to be an entrepreneur and want to be part of it, the initial passion can fizzle out fairly quickly when things get tough.

In my case, I've went through a few partners: 2 walked away and 1 have said that they're interested in learning but the time commitment is tough. Some people just aren't willing to put in everything that's required without really knowing that there's something in it for them.

What I've decided to do then is to take the lead and steer the ship until we hit revenue. My partners all have a full-time job so I can understand that putting extra hours in for something that may not turn out great is tough. That being said, I do appreciate their help.

In your case, is your partner willing to take a step back and let you guide things? It's important for you to be completely transparent and clarify things. If he's in, how in is he? What can you get from him and what do you need to give up for his help? Can he help you? Have that talk. Time is of the essence for a startup and you can't afford to keep things dragging along. Your family needs you.

</comment><comment><USER3> Bringing in an outsider to handle the "business" part of the business, especially when bestowed with a title like "CEO" over top of the original solo founder, is a recipe for a lopsided relationship. And it's somewhat unfair on your part to expect that another person can suddenly leap in with the same passionate drive you have for a product you built yourself for over a year. But honestly the fact that you're in different countries makes it that much worse.

Regardless, my understanding is that we're entering a dry period for capital in the tech business right now and investors are pulling back from tech startups in a big way.

If this is true, VCs are going to raise the bar quite high. A few years ago just the fact that you are in 2 different countries would be an automatic disqualification for many investors. And they can clearly see that not only are you collaborating remotely but you sourced someone and more or less put them in the driver's seat as your bizdev proxy.

I suppose the outlook was a lot more rosy back in Nov but it's frankly surprising that they even let you in the door in the first place. The investor gave you a very clear rational reason for backing out.

Your CEO's passion for your business isn't something you can force either. They see the risk as well. Unless your product is just mind blowing, which maybe it is given the interest, you're not going to raise money easily with this configuration.

You have a high bar in a difficult time, and a limp partner is the last thing you need. So yes you need to address this head on. Hopefully you can regroup, bootstrap a little longer and try again when you're on firmer ground

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> unless I prompt it, every decision gets evaluated over and over, things that I could decide on a dime (like going all in, or who to bring on in partnership) have to take weeks to decide and then revisit over and over. We get direct feedback from VC's saying "we want to see a plan for x, y and z" and this somehow turns into us changing three things no one mentioned... Its like he is unable to make a choice and then turn that choice into action... I suppose other than venting my real question is this: I have told CEO guy that he has to decide between "thing" and "day job" or we need to part ways. am I being precious or is this the right call?

<comment><AUTHOR> Should probably mention that when forced his plan was "to initially drop to 80% day job and 20% thing and see how it goes for a few months, and go all in once funded". I see this as a vote of no confidence and a lack of passion?

<comment><USER4> The difference in actions between him being skeptical and having no passion is very thin to people like us on the outside that aren't experiencing this first hand. Both case would opt for not fully committing. The answer will be in the details, such as his wording when talking about certain subjects, his mood and expressions when brainstorming and discussing different aspects of the project. Maybe it's a little of both. The point is, it is pretty much impossible for us to tell whether it's lack of passion or lack of confidence that's keeping him from taking that leap of faith.

As far as how you should go about handling the situation, I'm afraid I can't offer too much help as I do not have any experience in this situation. However, I do not think it's unreasonable for you to be pressuring him to call your raise and carry his own weight. The best advice I can suggest is to probably straight up talk to him and explain your concerns. After all, you guys are founding a company together, so you should be able to have discussions such as these as if it's your spouse.

Good luck mate</comment></comment></comment>


The Principal Developer - <AUTHOR> https://sizovs.net/2019/02/15/the-principal-developer/?new=true <comment><USER2> So, in short they want a developer that has skills that no developer is allowed to train.

If you want business oriented developers, you need to change your company's culture.

I have once been asked to work towards becoming one. I was asking for a salary augmentation after I had just doubled my workload during the previous year. I had upgraded to doing both front-end and back-end. My CTO told me that no matter how good at coding I would become, that's not what generates money and unless my value increased my salary wouldn't move.

He wanted me to become a better mentor, to be better at juggling budgets and at dealing with clients.

He also tracked my time to the minute and I wasn't allowed to do anything but code. Taking an hour to think about a problem before tackling it was frowned upon.

They will never promote any developer into that position, their company culture is the opposite of that.

I ended up leaving and found a nice company that actually rewards productivity and allows people to breath between tasks.

<comment><USER3> At first, I disagreed, but then I completely agree after thinking about that problem more. The proper mindset comes from the Top. If managers can't guide/lead their devs then they just can't expect business-oriented development. I guess most often what they want is less coding more features anyway. But if developers are supposed to help with business then they should understand the business and not be viewed as programmers but as the developers - for instance, programmers would probably code new feature from 0 but developers could use external SaaS to verify the need for that feature in the first place. I agree that developers need free room and a lot of help from management to make business development a reality.

On the other hand, I do think that not every developer is meant for that kind of work, there are lots of developers that think only about coding...

<comment><USER2> I've seen people who worked their own business, freelancers, etc., come in such a shop and end up out of date code monkeys after 2 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the second HN blog post I have read today where the author views a (former) colleague as an enemy to be defeated ( [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19190472](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19190472) was the other one). Given that they are having a casual phone call it can be assumed they are some kind of friends. Yet the author's self worth seems to be at least partially based in winning a game of being more correct.

Even if someone is wrong about something, why take joy in their failures or in beating them at something? Wouldn't it be better to take joy in their successes? It's not the point of the article, but it is jarring to me.

<comment><USER5> I agree, it comes off as really petty and does the author no favors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> All of these articles are meaningless.

You simply cannot define what makes a "senior/principle/lead" engineer. It depends on what the company needs.

If you're building a highly-technical thing (e.g. an OS) then your needs may be entirely different than building something low-tech and customer facing.

Any attempt to say that skill X matters more than Y for promotion (skill/IQ/social-skills/niceness/politics) is necessarily a drastic oversimplification.

Also, the idea that promotions are based on a skills is an absurd pretense. It's as much a function of creating a pretty org-chart as anything. To point - In open-source you may see a project of 3 principles and nobody else. You'd never see this in a company because the org chart doesn't look like a pretty tree.

<comment><USER7> "Whole-systems engineering, when you get good at it, goes beyond being entirely or even mostly about technical optimizations. Every artifact we make is situated in a context of human action that widens out to the economics of its use, the sociology of its users, and the entirety of what Austrian economists call "praxeology", the science of purposeful human behavior in its widest scope." \- Eric s. Raymond

I would agree that building a highly-technical piece of infrastructure will require a different skill set than building an enterprise-y "forms and reports" style application.

But if you're going to give someone the latitude to decide what kinds of problems they are going to solve (an not merely the latitude on how to solve it) you are going to want some communication skills and some awareness of how those problems relate to the overall goals of the business.

Now I tend to think that even in these higher level positions, technical skill still matters a lot. Architecture Astronauts are a plague and can create unnecessarily complex problems that the senior grunts have to deal with.

However, the importance of "soft skills" does grow as one move's up the ranks.

For me, the biggest take-away was that the CTO had failed to cultivate talented employees for promotion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If this CTO has those objectives, why doesn't he make them transparent? It should be clear for everybody what is expected in the next progression and part of the organizational performance management process

<comment><USER9> In my org, principal dev is expressly for the most talented devs who don't aspire to leadership roles. We have explicit leadership roles that require certain personality traits more than technical chops.

<comment><USER10> Like being able to deal with a thousand people dropping tasks on their desk and expecting them to get done.

<comment><USER9> No, we don't work that way. Devs are assigned to projects and projects have prioritized backlogs. There's always a next task and everything else gets in line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this is a good point, but it really feeds into one of the ongoing set of conversations that are happening on HN. One thing we keep coming back to is what an engineer gets promoted into. We repeatedly come to the conclusion that management (often) isn't the right career path and that technical seniority is important. But when you look at the really senior levels for engineers those management skills start to re-emerge. It's how you relate the engineering to the business and how you influence others. In this way you're actually taking on a management skillset, without necessarily taking on the direct responsibility.

Too often engineers want it all -they want the responsibility of a new grad coder with the title of an architect.

If you start looking at senior engineering roles in line with the cousins in management or sales you realise you need a much more broad background to reach those top levels.

<comment><USER12> I think the problem is that career path has multiple directions, as does seniority. Principal developer is just a label slapped on technical people that have management chops, as described in the article.

If "the most successful career path" is defined by financial compensation, it should be no surprise that those techies that also master the broader art of business and management add more value to the organization and are thus compensated accordingly.

Would they be able to replace that very senior distributed systems engineer? Maybe, but more likely it's a different type of value added to the organization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > We need fewer coders and more money makers.

This only works in a relatively small niche, like consulting bodyshop where billable hour is the only metric.

A coder that works on some internal software, database, in infosec, design is not making any money. A game developer who created a beautiful realistic- looking reflection, a web designer that eliminated possibility of XSS attack, an embedded engineer that spent extra week designing FADEC in such a way that race conditions cannot freeze it, how much money did they make?

</comment><comment><USER14> This will be a very unpopular opinion here but as someone who has managed a few different engineering departments and now a CTO I agree with the premise of the post.

A single business/mentor oriented senior+ engineer is an unbelievably effective force multiplier. One engineer can then take 2-3 very jr engineers and drive a small cost effective team. Such a team needs little product support given its lead is product oriented, and the technical architecture is unified as more junior engineers follow the leads standards to grow and learn from them.

On top of that in 2-3 years those jr engineers often become exceptionally effective business/tech focused engineers themselves.

Disclaimer: For this to work you need to either be a very small company and/or have a culture that doesnt use the product team/department as a wall between business and tech.

</comment><comment><USER15> Let's assume this is true... The CTO wants someone that will mentor but is unwilling to mentor his team. :-). Seriously, set expectations for your team and see if they rise to it. Folks don't read minds. CTO is probably screaming about how slow the release is and developer is cranking out feature after feature and now is flipping it around that developer is not talking to the business. If the developer was spending time, talking to the business and mentoring and doing little coding, perhaps CTO will claim that developer rarely ships and is not qualified. Frankly, folks that care about promoting from within do so and does that don't, will always look for outside talent.

</comment><comment><USER16> One wonders what the CTO does then.

</comment><comment><USER17> Or fewer CTOs who think they deserve the 1% working for them

<comment><USER18> CTO is going to be looking for a while given these demanded qualifications. Maybe he should have tried some mentoring himself.

Of course, none of this actually happened. It's just a made up story from some nobody tech influencer. There's a kernel of truth, which is that focus on larger business of objectives are important to keep in mind if you want to have a big impact. But there's a lot of BS wrapped around that kernel in this article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hmm personally sure I think developers should have ability or sense of making money. Generally speaking, it would make more sense to rather encourage developers _not_ be too obsessed with tools. Sure I like programming, computer network etc, but in my 30 I'd love to make more things that are accessible and useful to the world, not necessarily changing the world.

In Slack or chat today is kind of boring, developers are too obsessed with tools to the level that I wonder these people had done anything useful. No one mentions what kind of apps they build.

Developers or engineers should make more.

</comment><comment><USER20> All of the behaviours this alleged CTO supposedly wants from his "principal developer" are things that are punished if displayed by developers.

Speaking up about things that are wrong in other departments or decisions made by your "superiors"? You're not a team player.

Spending time helping other developers instead of crushing Jira tickets? We need to talk about your performance.

Going outside of your team to coordinate things with the rest of the business? You're cutting the product owner's grass (or interfering with management of some other team).

</comment><comment><USER21> Here is a related blog post from last week that defines the "Principal engineer" / "Staff engineer" role: [https://blog.dbsmasher.com/2019/01/28/on- being-a-principal-e...](https://blog.dbsmasher.com/2019/01/28/on-being-a- principal-engineer.html)

Discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19128489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19128489)

</comment><comment><USER22> If you want influence at your company, transform into a product owner. If you want to stay a coder, I think in most companies you can't expect to have any real say. I think most companies would love to have more technical product owners that can't be bullshitted by the dev team. Fake it till you make it!

<comment><USER10> Even if you know, management has to listen to you (not just mouth the words), which is a much bigger challenge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Talking to a former colleague that way just makes you seem like a very unpleasant person.

</comment><comment><USER24> The article is confused about the position it's writing about. That's either a director, vp of engineering, or even the CTO itself and at that point, no longer a developer or individual contributor.

</comment><comment><USER25> Comments here are pretty negative, I'm curious how this made it to the front page. It was submitted by the author. Question is, who upvoted it?</comment>


Interview with Lucidchart Founders - <AUTHOR> http://howtowriteabusinessplan.com/2013/02/lucidchart/ <comment><USER2> It is interesting to see what people are working on after they leave Google.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Nice to see a substitute for the pricey Visio

<comment><USER3> Thanks! The price point definitely helps pull away customers from Visio. It is pretty common for us to see a customer get rid of 10 Visio licenses and buy 100+ Lucidchart licenses in its place.

More often than not though, it's the other features -- realtime collaboration, integration with platforms like Google Apps/Drive, and general ease of use -- that seals the deal vs. Visio.</comment></comment>


Generating and Populating Caves in a Roguelike Game - <AUTHOR> http://www.gridsagegames.com/blog/2016/03/generating-populating-caves/ <comment><USER2> Brogue, another roguelike, has impressive level generation as well. Here's a great interview with the developer about how it all works.

[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/07/28/how-do- roguelike...](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/07/28/how-do-roguelikes- generate-levels/)

<comment><USER3> Wow, I've actually read through Brogue's level generation code, and this is an excellent writeup. Makes many aspects of it much clearer!</comment></comment>


THE LIGHTNING NETWORK COULD MAKE BITCOIN FASTER–AND CHEAPER - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/the-lightning-network-could-make-bitcoin-faster-and-cheaper/ <comment><USER2> DO WE REALLY NEED TO SHOUT?

My problems with the Lightning Network are neatly summarized in this video. [https://youtu.be/k14EDcB-DcE](https://youtu.be/k14EDcB-DcE)

Larger blocks is the simple, obvious, and better solution, in the short-to- medium term. That was the reason for the Bitcoin Cash fork.</comment>


A growing number of types is a canary in the coal mine - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Lager/a-growing-number-of-types-is-a-canary-in-the-coal-mine-658bad1692b8 <comment><USER2> I don't really get this: what counts as a feature? What counts as a type?

Let's say you're writing a new microservice in C# or Java, you will probably exceed 7-8 new classes/structs/enums/interfaces with just boilerplate and external data model.

Now if you're adding 7-8 new types for a small 1-2 week feature... yeah you should probably think twice.</comment>