Job hunting experience (and few advices) - <AUTHOR> http://lists.lrug.org/htdig.cgi/chat-lrug.org/2012-November/008294.html

<comment><USER3> I'm graduating soon from a top university (not Ivy League though) with a masters in CS. I've interviewed with 4 companies so far and 2 of them have just never gotten back to me. One of them was after 4 interviews including a 4 hour coding test. I sent several emails, but just silence.

I can only attribute this behavior to cowardice. I guess they (HR) are just to afraid to be upfront. I apply to one company at a time so they have my full attention. Finding out I waited around for nothing makes me rage. It's so incredibly rude to treat people like that.

I want to start a list of companies that do this. Make them accountable, or at least keep people from wasting time.

In fact, here they are: SpaceX (4 hour code interview, then nothing), LogicMonitor

<comment><USER4> You got lucky with SpaceX. From what I hear, it's a sweatshop, with minimum 70 hour weeks and 120-hour weeks not unheard of.

<comment><USER5> One joins SpaceX with a sense of mission and urgency. Their rate of progress comes with a price. That should be clear upfront.

<comment><USER4> I'm of the school of thought that that kind of life isn't "a price," it's poor management. Work quality (as well as employee health) decreases with incredible speed under those kinds of conditions, with very real permanent damage possible.

I don't know if it's clear upfront or not; I never was looking to interview there. But "a sense of mission and urgency" is no excuse for what can only be considered labor abuse.

<comment><USER5> If one wants to work for SpaceX we can assume that he's at least aware of the space industry environment and SpaceX's goals to get to Mars by the end of this decade (plus some years of buffer). It should be clear that SpaceX utilizes the available (human) resources intensively to iterate quickly over new design approaches.

I'm positive that with a more cosy, relaxed way grasshopper wouldn't safely land and no Dragon would dock at the ISS. In this case SpaceX wouldn't exist any longer.

<comment><USER4> It's not about "cozy" or "relaxed"--regardless of my thoughts of how cushy or stress-free an environment should or shouldn't be, SpaceX is at the point where simply you are reducing the productivity and effectiveness of your employees, as well as their health. They are __more likely __to make mistakes, which in the case of space exploration, can be life-threatening mistakes. There are quite a few articles out there describing how lack of sleep (not to mention stress) cause people to react similarly to how they would if they were drunk (<http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/05/sleep/max-text>). Less social acceptance of drunk employment, but similar danger and productivity loss.

I think you'd need to provide more explanation of why you think the Grasshopper wouldn't land if SpaceX's employees were permitted to get a full night's sleep. Why is SpaceX different than NASA? As far as I know, no one ever worked those kinds of hours at NASA, and certainly not for years on end-- maybe for the week before a space launch. I know if I were an astronaut, I'd much rather the people at mission control were well-rested and alert rather frenzied and terrified of management, falling asleep at the controls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _I sent him my CV only to be told it "was corrupt and unreadable" and that he couldn't open it. I had to convert my "corrupt" ODT file to a MS Doc file._

Lose this attitude, fast. Do you want to convince recruitment agents to change their word processor, or do you want to find a job?

<comment><USER7> I always send my CV in PDF format.

<comment><USER8> So do I, but a lot of agencies insist on Word format, because it's easier for them to hide your contact details when they send the CV to their clients.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can completely understand his frustration with being put on the spot without much of a warning.

I had applied for a data analyst position with a "Big 4" shop, and after an initial phone screen, was asked to come in for an "aptitude test". After probing for details, all I was told was that this test would be around data analysis in my domain (which happened to be retail banking credit risk), with no further details about the format or structure.

Imagine my surprise when I came in, and realised it was a written test! That's right -- I had 40 minutes to write down detailed answers to questions on sheets of paper. One of these questions was a couple of tables and required me to write SQL queries that did a couple of operations on the tables. All with pencil and paper.

I spent about 5 minutes of the allotted time just re-acquainting myself with the 'art' of penmanship, and ended up focusing more on legibility than content (my handwriting is atrocious, barely more than a chicken scrawl).

Needless to say, I didn't get the job. And the kicker was, the HR chap said they would provide feedback on why I was unsuccessful, but never did, despite repeated follow-up attempts.

Bah, humbug.

</comment><comment><USER10> One thing I don't get are the automated tests.

Assuming that average hourly rate is $50, the developer spends $100 of his time doing the test and thus showing commitment to reach an agreement about the job. The company, on the other hand, spends nothing and thus makes no commitment whatsoever.

The proposition is not atractive in any way unless you are completely desperate.

So, the company is basically selecting for the worst developers.

Is there any point I've missed?

<comment><USER11> You still spend 2 "unbillable" hours of your life if it is a phone call instead of a test.

And obviously there will be some costs to the company, the test didn't develop itself, and there is likely a developer reviewing the code after completion.

In this case the developer is in a different city, the test appears to be designed to see if it is worthwhile to bring him in for further interview.

<comment><USER10> If it is a phone call, the company is spending money/time as well. It's mutual commitment.

Developing test beforehand requires no commitment ($0) to particular applicant. There's no commitment.

As for reviewing, I've seen A/B/C/D tests out there. These can be evaluated automatically. So once again, no commitment.

Now, the point is than anyone -- if there's an option -- prefers situation where there's at least some commitment from the other side. Thus, the guys with automated tests are going to hire only developers which have no other choice. It looks like they are shooting themselves in the foot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> You'd be better off sending your CV as a PDF, that way there are no 'corruption' issues.

<comment><USER13> I always use PDF, but most agencies will ask you for the CV in an editable format.

I specially dislike that, but if you think about it nothing prevents them to copy & paste into a doc document (well, if they ask for an editable format may be they lack the skills to do it, who knows!).

<comment><USER14> Well, they are trying to help you get a job, they have a better idea on how to do it so the least you could do is provide them with the information they need. Given that most people still use Windows, I would, at least, send a Word document with the PDF. You can also send the ODT, nothing against that.

<comment><USER15> They don't do this to help you get a job. Recruiters insist on an editable version so they can remove your contact details and insert their letterhead. This makes it harder for their clients to contact you directly and cut out their fee.

<comment><USER14> I'm sure that happens sometimes but I've seen lots of CVs coming from recruiters which had new sections crafted by the recruiters themselves like a summary of why I should care about that person, etc. They depend on me hiring that person to get their fee so I expect them to provide me more than the CV itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Second agency: After talking to this agency that specialises in Ruby work, I sent him my CV only to be told it "was corrupt and unreadable" and that he couldn't open it. I had to convert my "corrupt" ODT file to a MS Doc file."

Why on earth would you send an recruiter/agency an ODT file? I mean sure, I get that you want to use Open/Libre Office but it is hardly standard for any company so using it seems rather silly. If you are gonna send your CV, make it easy for the recruiters or agencies to read it.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Not everyone is aware of OpenOffice (or even if they are, of what the .odt extension refers to), and PDF is probably the best way to go.

If you're _really_ against proprietary formats, why don't you just create a simple HTML/CSS webpage, supported by all browsers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For anyone willing to relocate, Norway is desperate for engineers and developers. Everybody gets 25 days vacation, near-free medical services, insurance and pension covered by employer, 40-hour working week being the norm, etc.

<comment><USER18> Pension might not be available when the person get old. Near-free medical comes with loooong waiting lines just because the company doesn't want to spend money on real insurance.

40 hour work week is a lie. Its a damn lie and is a lie.

Also, you forgot to mention your living costs and taxes.

Then again, I'd take Norway over Sweden just because Sweden is fucked and Norway is pretty responsible financially and is doing well with it's oil reserves.

<comment><USER19> I'm working in Norway currently. For what reasons could your pension be denied when you become old? (Assuming you are a permanent resident by the time you want to collect).

I've found in the government jobs, the <= 40hr week is pretty much guaranteed. I agree that the waiting times are a little crazy--I had to wait 3 months to see a specialist after a recommendation from my fastlege.

<comment><USER18> Do your research regarding the pensions. They can deny you in terms like the country being piss poor. England has done it, Hungary just did it recently, England is planning on doing it again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Many of the anecdotes related here remind me of my own first job-hunting experience - not in a good way.

Best advice I ever got? Read _Ask The Headhunter_.

It's not all about you. These employers have a problem to be solved - that's why they're hiring. Figure out what their problem is, and how you can solve it for them.

</comment><comment><USER21> All I can say is - welcome to the real world! Remember, an agency only makes money when they place you. I know it sucks, but that's the harsh reality. I now just accept that unless they do come back to you, the answer is no.

I've been doing this for a few years now and seen companies that ask you to do a +1 hour technical test. I can't imagine what they are looking for, but know it isn't me. Maybe they are just testing the market? Maybe they want to know if they are paying their developers too much? How bad do you want to work for a place like that?

Sometimes you never can tell, just chalk it down to a bad experience and move on...

</comment><comment><USER22> Congratulations! You've had your horrific first interview. Mine was slightly kinder to me - kicked off with a friendly chat and then annotating code/explaining an algorithm. It took a nose dive - much like yours - when I was asked to write simple classes representing a retail store on one of the interviewer's Asus Transformer. An android device with a notepad app.

Its a learning experience. What I did immediately when getting home was write the damn task to completion to prove I could do it. Mainly what interviewers are wanting you to do in that kind of task is vocalise what you're thinking. It's useful to them since you're showing a logical approach to understanding and breaking down the problem. You show that you're a communicator. It's useful to you since you're talking it aloud and generally this allows you to avoid pitfalls before they happen.

I don't think you're going to completely avoid this kind of task in future interviews, so practice with a friend! Don't get too disheartened - <USER2> experience is one that a lot of grad coders will have and now reviewing it and improving is a task that will let you kick ass in future.

</comment><comment><USER23> My advice? Come to Dublin instead!

Loads of Ruby/Rails jobs, an ace startup scene in an exciting city and the friendliest people in the world :)

<comment><USER24> Is there somewhere Dublin startups tend to advertise openings? I'm in Belfast and I have wondered in the recent past if there would be any opportunities to work semi-remotely for a Dublin based startup. There is plenty of work in Belfast, but it tends to be Java / .net developers for big corporations.

<comment><USER23> RubyJobs (<http://www.rubyjobs.ie/jobs>) sometimes has startup positions listed but your best bet is to just pop down to a Ruby meetup (<http://www.rubyireland.com/>) cos there's where all the startup peeps hang out. The first line of dialogue with practically anyone at these things is "Are you looking for a job" - but obviously the more well known you are in the community the more often you'll be asked.

My experience is relatively limited (about 5.5 dev years) but once you've a good reputation then you'll never have to look for another job - it'll be lined up for you. Until the bubble bursts that is!

I also know a good recruiter (one or two exist!) who does work for the odd startup if you're interested in taking that route. Email me (ger [at] getchoocreations.com) if you're interested.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I will admit that I solved this "problem" around 1994 just by simply automating the process of searching and responding to jobs. So, once you realize that really what you're dealing with is a numbers game here, you'll come to realize that automation is the key to it. I will admit that I've never had a problem finding a job, only because I get 20 calls per day when I chmod 755 /etc/cron.daily/find_jobs.sh... Sorry to let the cat out of the bag.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm looking for remote ruby work for ~25 hours a week. Anyone have tips on landing part-time remote work?</comment>


Tor veteran exits, shuts down critical 'Tonga' node and relays - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/18/lucky_green_torpedos_tors_tonga_node/ <comment><USER2> Since he considers it not ethical to continue, my guess is that there is some kind of government action attempting to force them to sniff or backdoor the service.

As for why he is announcing he is shutting it down rather than just pulling the plug, pulling the plug may well be considered obstruction of justice, but just refusing to donate materially can't be prevented by the government. It may well be that lawyers have advised him that by announcing his decision to not participate it gives the government reasonable notice to be able to find an alternative or take some action, and counting on there being no practical way for the government to respond without revealing that they are involved.

Edit: It may also be possible that he has become aware of a 'looming' threat to de-anonymize the service but can't speak of it, and he is announcing that he is pulling out since if he is subsequently compelled not to pull out it will act as a canary.

</comment><comment><USER3> To me, this feels a lot like what transpired with [https://lavabit.com/](https://lavabit.com/). Of course, that was a service operated by a company, not a open source software and a distributed network, but there might be paralells.

If you haven't read about it, read the post mortem on the Lavabit page.

To me, it's very likely that the government demanded backdoors in TOR code itself, or backdoor access to critical TOR infrastructure (bridge nodes, directory authority, large exit nodes, ...), all under gag orders that forbid any mention of this to the public.

Probably in the interest of 'national security'.

Can't be sure, of course, but I would not feel comfortable with using TOR for anything sensitive anymore.

<comment><USER4> > Can't be sure, of course, but I would not feel comfortable with using TOR > for anything sensitive anymore.

Out of curiosity, what alternative(s) would you use?

<comment><USER5> Not the parent poster and no expert, but I'd probably buy a cheap random notebook from the store with cash and use it in free WiFis. Make sure to spoof your MAC address.

I mainly used Tor if I was on a dubious WiFi and was afraid someone was snooping on me - note that due to insecure exit notes you have the same problem there, too - or when something was blocked. But at least your employer doesn't see you use Facebook ;-)

Nowadays I use a server I rented in a different country as a SOCKS proxy which works well.

If you want to be anonymous towards the sure your accessing, I don't know of a good alternative. But many sites block Tor anyway now because people use it for spam or harassment.

Just a crazy idea, but if my safety needs were really high, I'd try to 1) buy botnet nodes and use them as a proxy or 2) build a ultra-low-energy Wi-Fi capable system (saw something commercial on HN the other day, forgot the name), set it up as a proxy, and throw it with a battery near a free Wi-Fi (coffee shop etc.).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Appelbaum and the board are out. So now I'm curious. What about recent events have transpired in a way that he has to cut ties?

Does the organization still housecleaning to do? The Tor leadership jumped on the grenade, presumably clearing the area for everyone else. Is there an entirely different angle that I'm missing? Because that vague of a post only implies one.

<comment><USER7> Any risk that a coup or plant was brought in by the housecleaning? (honestly asked, I have no clue whatsover)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In a project focused on privacy, vague unclear statements of this sort convey a certain implication. There is, of course, no way to be sure what is intended, and that is rather the point.

<comment><USER9> If it were anything security-critical it wouldn't be happening over a month in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> what events? It would be great if he spoke openly, so people not following tor very intensively would know what is so concerning. Yes, I am living under a rock.

<comment><USER11> There's no event clearly referenced here.

The Appelbaum crisis is the most recent public drama, but that's mostly a settled matter and a fall has already been taken for it. It would be fairly strange to do this now over that incident.

Given which, it looks like someone involved with a privacy project is refusing to disclose their motives for shutdown, but also shutting down slowly and openly, the way you wouldn't if someone was knocking on your door. This is an ambiguous outcome to almost everyone.

<comment><USER12> >It would be fairly strange to do this now over that incident.

It wouldn't be strange if you thought the accusations were bullshit.

<comment><USER11> That's an interesting point - it hadn't actually occurred to me that this could be a reaction to the reaction. That would fit the timing (and maybe the ambiguity) much better than reacting to the original topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How is a scheduled shutdown (2016-08-31) a "torpedoing"?

<comment><USER14> It is Alliterative

      Tor Torpedoes Tonga

Perhaps they could've even gone further

      Top Torian Torpedoes Tonga Tech

<comment><USER13> "Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate."

<comment><USER15> I'm afraid I read this in the voice of Pontius Pilate from the Life of Brian...

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ik0cqxJElqA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ik0cqxJElqA)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Maybe he's being sued by the NSA for data and his only "ethical" choice is to just shut it down and walk away, since he'll have been gagged by them in the same suit.

</comment><comment><USER17> So what TOR alternatives are there? I came across this on here I think a few weeks back [http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/99859](http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/99859) but I'm not sure it is up and running or even if it is.

<comment><USER18> I2P and Freenet are the big ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> All the rampant speculation in this discussion serves no good purpose and is more harmful than helpful.

<comment><USER20> What about meaningless comments such as yours with neither information nor speculation? Do they serve a purpose?

I personally like reading comments even if they are speculative, as I am interested but not an expert.</comment></comment>


Show HN : AppBot - App Store reviews and features straight to your inbox - <AUTHOR> http://appbot.co

<comment><USER2> Did you see this post from yesterday? Is it just a coincidence that you have the same product, but opposing design abilities?

You've got a lot of text, but shere's the call too action. There's no emotion on this page. No sense of urgency or desire.

My 2cents, it needs some energy. Go copy basecamp or something similar

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep did see that, agree it's a pretty big coincidence they launched a few days after mine [http://discovr.info/2012/07/how-we-track-our-app-reviews- and...](http://discovr.info/2012/07/how-we-track-our-app-reviews-and-why-you- should-too/)</comment></comment>


Craigslist lawsuit against someone who made posting to Craigslist easier - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110922/02372216046/craigslist-trying-to-destroy-life-someone-who-made-posting-to-craigslist-easier.shtml

<comment><USER2> IANAL but I've felt that craigslist's insistence on other sites from being able to use their data or submit data into their site constitutes a monopoly. At the very least they have been a bad stewart of a very useful and under- tooled set of important data.

</comment><comment><USER3> Person's post in Reddit about this: [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ku5ss/i_was_sued_for_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ku5ss/i_was_sued_for_over_12_million_unknowingly_and/)</comment>


Why Is Bitcoin Valuable? - <AUTHOR> https://taylorpearson.me/why-is-bitcoin-valuable/ <comment><USER2> The most interesting part of the cryptocurrency phenomenon has been the rise of pseudo-academic writing to support individual coins or the concept itself. Every time a new coin emerges, there's a detailed advertisement that's styled like an economics journal article. At the same time, there's low-level sophistry like this article to assert that cryptocurrency is going to solve social problem X.

People who believe cryptocurrency is going to prevent autocracy have lost all grasp on reality.

<comment><USER3> You should check out a project like Cardano then, they make their research go through academic peer review before they do anything. They also write their code in a way that you can prove it is an actual implementation of what the paper said (if I'm remembering correctly,but I'm not very familiar on the topic so I won't say much more about that, you can research it if you want).

<comment><USER4> Cardano is the perfect example of hot air blurring the lines of sales vs. science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why do all crypto currency enthusiasts assume that when a government cannot guarantee monetary stability there will still be reliable, always on, high bandwidth internet connections to sync distributed ledgers across the globe?

Also: Does any crypto currency have anything in store to protect itself against bad nodes? I don't mean nodes that send invalid packages but nodes that act like real nodes but just eat transactions and blocks without relaying them. Flood a network with a few million of these nodes, don't relay addresses of valid nodes and the network will split eventually.

<comment><USER6> > Flood a network with a few million of these nodes, don't relay addresses of > valid nodes and the network will split eventually.

Could you direct me to the theory supporting this assertion? Was considering doing a simulation of this but need some kind of model.

<comment><USER5> That's a thought I came up with a couple of months ago but I wasn't able to find time to test it out myself. From my point of view this seems like a very viable, albeit expensive attack vector without any potential to make money. The only result is destroying confidence in the network, so state level attacks might be the only reason to apply it.

<comment><USER7> I think there are a few viable, but expensive attack vectors that have been well known within the community for years. But one thing that's always bugged me is how many people out there seem to think that a cryptocurrency could survive being an actual target by a sufficiently powerful state. The economic damage alone just by the whisper of an actual 'war on Bitcoin' would be devastating, without anyone actually lifting a finger. Let alone putting resources into actual attacks on technical, economic, and social levels. Doesn't really matter if a few enthusiast cypherpunks around the world can keep a few nodes going and technically say 'bitcoin is not dead, see!' when the economic model and security is fundamentally based on continued demand for BTC.

I've been really interested in Bitcoin and have followed it closely since Satoshi was still active, and consider myself a pretty big fan of it in general. But the general arrogance and delusion about the reality of where real power is in the world is a bit cringeworthy. And it's always been that way in the community.

It might get interesting in the future if two or more states have competing interest in Bitcoin(or whatever). I can imagine some hypothetical situation where the US political tide turns very anti-BTC, but say China has enough money tied up in it that it's incentivized to attempt to defend it. Like say if enough people in positions of political power have significant portions of their wealth tied up in it. That's possible, I guess. Sounds messy though for something that relies on economic confidence.

Either way, so far all the luck has been on the side of Bitcoin, as really there's been little to no political pushback against the technology itself. That's pretty awesome, and it's made for a very interesting 7 years or so since BTC really woke up and people around here and elsewhere started seriously discussing it. But the political risk is very real and understated imo. The technical risk is interesting in theory for sure, but just knowing a sufficiently powerful state has the ability to attack is probably more than enough to cause massive economic damage without actually pulling any technological triggers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are currently the perfect products to sell to people who want to get rich, preferably quickly. That will always be a huge market in our economic system.

<comment><USER9> "But this time, it's different!"

\- Every scam victim ever

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> OK, so Bitcoin is censorship-resistant. Good. But a practical alternative that would allow high-volume, cheap transactions could blow it off the water. This is weird; I keep seeing 'justifications' of Bitcoin's current value and future success that, to me, can simply be reduced to a sunk-cost fallacy. I have read for instance that Bitcoin's worth 'is the area under curve of the energy expense of the miners' (sunk-cost fallacy) or that it has a "pareto-like" quality, being the first largely capitalized cryptocurrency, that would make it immune from failure.

Are there any justifications for Bitcoin that cannot be explained by a cognitive bias?

<comment><USER11> > Are there any justifications for Bitcoin that cannot be explained by a > cognitive bias?

Are you aware that you can put nearly everything in this sentence instead of Bitcoin and it still holds just as true?

Free markets haven't really made the world totally fair. Democracy hasn't really given all people the ability to choose. Your job hasn't really paid you as much as you've produced value for your boss. Marrying your wife was a questionable choice, to some degree. And your parents also don't really love each other anymore. Your life isn't really meaningful to anything but the fantasy you run yourself in your head to explain it.

We live off of the cognitive biases that we are able to believe in. Enjoy having some cognitive biases left as long as you still have some.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand people who cite current network speed/overload, transaction problem/cost and co as the reason why Bitcoin (or any crypto) will fail in the future.

Nothing is set in stone - its software, all of these things are fixable and are being worked on. Its still so very early in the game.

If you compare crypto to a traditional startup project - I'd say user engagement and growth is more valuable than a perfect product from the start.

<comment><USER13> > user engagement and growth

I wouldn't compare those. Most of the altcoin trading is completely speculative, not even in the sense that they "believe in the future of the coin", a lot is purely speculative profit-making (e.g xrp), pump-and-dump chasing and herdish behavior. Very few coins have substantial engaged _followers_ (e.g. raiblocks) and only the top 2 have actual users. I 'm a believer in the technologies but they are in such early alpha stage that it's not justified to expect that most of them will even prove to work.

The biggest issue for me is the distribution of coins, with most ICOs unashamedly aiming to make the founders and investors billionaires from day 2. Even if their products prove succesful, i think a forked, clean chain will win over more followers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting article, but more an argument for why a large class of cryptocoins might be valuable, or even more so, why an ecosystem of cryptocoins might collectively value, rather than an argument for why Bitcoin _specifically_ is valuable.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't really understand all the negativity towards bitcoin on HN these days.

Back when it was new nobody would shame or outright insult people who invested in it. But somehow that's totally the norm now. Why does it matter whether the coin is worth 10$ or 10000$?

It was and still is a disruptive concept that solves many issues with our current centralized currency system.

Sure it also has a lot of issues itself. But can't we simply appreciate the technology for what it is: a Proof Of Concept.

</comment><comment><USER16> It had potentials but none of that matters with lack of protection against overhyped valuation. It's not a currency if it what you paid for a cup of coffee could've bought a Ferrari the next day. And blockchain is more like plumbing than some star-fangled magic. Last time I got excited about plumbing is...never mind.

<comment><USER17> Why people still make comparisons to bitcoin as a currency is beyond my understanding. It's more like gold than like a currency. Judging it as a currency makes no sense.

The volatility will go down over time and even if we were to compare it to currencies go back in history and you will see plenty of fluctuating currencies. A stable currency is a fairly new phenomenon and it comes with a price (you have to grow the economy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Bitcoin and any other interpretation of the blockchain is valuable because they create a physical fabric in the digital space. It will take time to implement but its going to be commonplace for the next generations. It allows for an increased complexity regardless of how the individual creator is doing. There is a lot of scams and snakeoil salesmen a lot of fools gold, just like there were in the golddigger years and the wil get booted out sooner or later, but the value of this decentralized fabric especially with regards to bitcoin is invaluable for any future decelopment of infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER18> Why is it valuable? Because we keep talking about it. Because we hear about people who made their wealth using the inter webs and we want to make money and we have credit cards and we speculate. Oh well. Since the dollar must circulate, we have to give monetary value to things. And if not bitcoin it would be something else.

</comment><comment><USER19> Bitcoin is no different than any other non-commodity currency. It's only valuable because people believe they can, or will eventually, be able to use it to acquire something with intrinsic value. Without that confidence, it's worthless.

Personally, I have lots of confidence that the USD in my bank account will one day, at a time of my choosing, get me intrinsically valuable things like cars, a home, food, cloths, etc. With bitcoin, I have very little confidence that will occur. So it's not very valuable to _me_. Nor do I have confidence that there will always be a "greater fool" handy to purchase any bitcoin I might buy for more than I paid for it. I think bitcoin will inevitably collapse.

TFA talks about "citizens protecting themselves from irresponsible or malicious governments and companies", but that's not a problem I'm aware that I have. If it were, then I might be interested in owning bitcoin.

<comment><USER20> Do you have the same mindset in regards to physical gold? Gold has very little, if any, intrinsic or practical value, yet generations of humans have been motivated to acquire more of it. With digital currencies like Bitcoin, I think we're seeing the birth of a new type of scarce resource that will motivate generations of people to come.

<comment><USER19> _> Do you have the same mindset in regards to physical gold? Gold has very little, if any, intrinsic or practical value, yet generations of humans have been motivated to acquire more of it._

That statement is self-contradicting. If people covet gold for reasons other than what they might exchange it for, that means it has intrinsic value. And in addition to the satisfaction some people get from decorating their bodies with gold, it has many other practical uses. It's used in all types of electronic devices, including the computer you're reading this on.

And as a medium of exchange, gold does not rely on a global computer network being available. (But in a post-apocalyptic world, gold probably would not have as much intrinsic value as it does currently. Whiskey, guns and cartridges would probably be a better bet.)

The only thing scarce about crypto-currency is the energy it consumes, and the world's tolerance for its environmental impact. Aside from that, what prevents anyone from creating a new one?

It's all about the mindset. As long as enough people believe bitcoin is valuable, it will be valuable. I could be wrong, but I don't think that will continue to be the case long term. I think crypto-currencies will continue to exist and will have some practical uses, but, IMO, their values relative to USD are going to be, shall we say, "adjusted" to a more sane level sometime in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Back in 2004, I lived in shithole country called Uzbekistan, I wanted to buy some US stocks but my bank refused to transfer MY money because of strict currency control in Uzbekistan. This was probably the first time in my life I realized that I don't actually own money stored at bank, it's just bank temporarily allows me to use my money and at any whim bank would reject to do so.

In 2010, I lived in a little bit better but still crappy country called Russia, I returned to my old idea to buy US stocks. This time is was possible but I had to make high-quality translation of agreement with US broker (i.e. Google translate wouldn't be accepted) and wait for a week to get permission to wire transfer my money to US brokerage account.

In 2012, I wanted to do some small business and I wanted to do everything legally (I was still naive at that time) so I approached my bank in Russia and said that I want to setup website which accepts credit card payments from US. My bank said they wouldn't allow me to do this.

Then I thought I can open foreign bank account. I tried to open bank account at HSBC in Hong Kong and was rejected for being Russian citizen (that's literally was a reason!). I also was rejected at every single bank in Europe.

And even if I succeed to create shell company in some offshore islands and some account at some not very much reputable bank, I would still have great problems to legalize this money in Russia as I understood from talking to lawyers (again, I naively wanted to do everything legally).

So being citizen of two wrong countries, I quickly realized how tightly government and banks control my money. At one hand Russia and Uzbekistan restrict me to move my capital abroad. On the other hand, even if you manage to move your capital abroad, western countries refuse your money. I could call this the Great Western Wall.

So now, I highly appreciate cryptocurrencies. If you have BTC, ETH, XRP nobody would stop you to send money anywhere. It's so much valuable! The only drawback is extreme volatility of these currencies. But with creation decentralized stable cryptocurrency DAI, this changing game even more.

I think the only people who hate cryptocurrencies are those bloody conformists, big brother lovers who never experienced first hand how shitty traditional financial system is.

<comment><USER22> Do you think that once/if crypto currencies become mainstreams, they won't be regulated just as much by shite governments ?

To believe that the most fundamental social human issues can be solved by technology is a bit of an utopia imho. Greed, lust for power, envy, etc. Those are part of human nature, i don't think they will disappear thanks to some elaborated algorithm. Unless you want algorithms to take control of social interactions (which is another kind of shite society).

<comment><USER21> The governments can only slowdown cryptocurrency revolution but they can't stop it.

BTC, LTC are traceable, so you can still track down owner (although it may be extremely difficult in some cases).

But with technologies like zero-knowledge proof in ZCash, you have untraceable money.

So at some point, when cryptocurrencies hit mainstream, you may see the situation when people start exchange goods and services directly in ZCash or Monero. I just don't see how government can shutdown this.

I don't see how governments can crackdown cryptocurrencies completely. So in long term, impact of cryptocurrencies on global economy is inevitable.

<comment><USER23> The same way they investigate individuals or businesses they suspect of lying on their tax returns. Look for suspicious patterns, investigate records, reward guilty ones with fines or jail time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Supply and demand curves are what make things valuable or not. Bitcoin has a finite set of coins in its network. Most people only buy fractions of a bitcoin because one full bitcoin is too pricy for them.

People used to earn Bitcoins using GPU mining rigs. ASIC miners made that obsolete. GPU mining is no longer profitable but the average person does not know or understand that.

I've seen stores like Microcenter sell out of expensive GPUs and expensive power supplies to power them. My son last year had to build a new gaming PC after his old one blew out. His GTX video card was $240 last year, but now sells for $640.

If Bitcoin is the new gold rush, the people selling shovels and supplies to miners at higher than normal prices will sell GPUs power supplies and high end Clubs and motherboards.

I am using Coinbase since the new year. I invested $1 in Bitcoin and $1 in Litecoin. They are only worth 75% as much now. It was just dipping my toe in the waters before jumping in. I am not going to jump in until I learn more about it. Buy low and sell high and don't invest any money you can't afford to lose or do without before it raises back up to sell for a profit.

<comment><USER11> > I am using Coinbase since the new year.

Why put money in a gold rush after the rush? Can you explain the logic behind it? Like, have you never heard about it before 2018?

Honestly if Bitcoin stabilizes around $300/coin it's still a huge profit to the people who started it and invested early (I bout around $90/coin). $12k/coin certainly is ridiculous. But I don't understand why people would even put a single dollar into something at such a point.

<comment><USER25> > But I don't understand why people would even put a single dollar into > something at such a point.

because they think it will go higher</comment></comment></comment>


Interview with Denis Mars – Aussie co-founder of meetings.io - <AUTHOR> http://www.theroadtosiliconvalley.com/founders/interview-denis-mars-aussie-cofounder-meetingsio/ Got a chance to speak to an Aussie founder based out of Palo Alto (Silicon Valley) re-inventing communications for a connected world. Here's what happened. <comment><USER2> great interview. cheers.</comment>


How Trello Onboards New Users - <AUTHOR> http://www.useronboard.com/how-trello-onboards-new-users/

<comment><USER2> > Hey there, tiny-screen-owner! There'd normally be a slideshow here breaking > down the onboarding experience with annotations and such, but the details > would be illegible at this size - sorry! Come back with a bigger screen, > maybe?

:(

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Top-notch user onboarding. I do miss the "Sedate the Lemur" intro video, though!

</comment><comment><USER3> Cant you just post the index of all the demos instead of individually?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure what you mean. How so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great breakdown

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!</comment></comment>


Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular <comment><USER2> Does the CRU even collect data? i thought they were some sort of aggregation organization. Maybe I'm wildly off base, but it thought a whole bunch of people working in independent fields with independent methodologies said, "huh. looks like it's getting a little warmer over time".

Isn't CRU's purpose to reconcile all that data? i'd be willing to stipulate they're a bunch if lying liars, but that doesn't mean all the raw data is faked, just that we don't understand the relationship between less ozone and tree ring thickness (or whatever metric scientist X chose to measure)

<comment><USER3> A major problem is they have refused to publish the raw data they used for their conclusions. One of the emails said something like, "I hope nobody figures out that the Freedom of Information act applies to us." (Britain's FOI act.) I also don't get the sense that they faked data. But they hand picked it from different sources at different times and used questionable statistical methods to make it look worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Watergate is a hotel/office/apartment building. Why do all 'scandals' have to end with -gate?

<comment><USER5> Because it's a cheap way to make your opponents look sleazy and create a whiff of scandal around a topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

Sorry, but that sounds like a normal database. Enter any organization with more than 3 employees to hear the same shouts of despair.

<comment><USER7> We should hold scientists to a higher standard than any organization with more than 3 employees. Especially if they are spending Other People's Money.

<comment><USER8> Sorry, but the "other people's money" thing irks me. You've experienced all the benefits of living in a society that chooses to fund things collectively with taxes, and paying taxes is part of being an active participant in that society.

<comment><USER9> That's not the perspective in question. The point is that when you are taking other people's money, you have a responsibility, as part of that society you mention, to take that money more seriously than you might take money you earn from your own labors.

Money is a big deal; money is retirement funds, money is food, money is medical care, money is all kinds of things. Money isn't just "big TVs" and "fast cars", though it is those things too. Society needs to take money to do various things, but the recipients should be treating it as a sacred honor, not their birthright. When you waste $1000 of your own money, you (hopefully!) do it in the knowledge that you can afford it; when you waste $1000 of public money, you should do it in the knowledge that at least some of the people that came from really _couldn't_ afford it, especially if it brought them no value.

I say this in general, actually, not specifically in reference to any recipient of public money. And I say it with full knowledge that it's horrifically utopian and there's hardly anyone that actually acts that way. But they _should_.

<comment><USER10> But taking extra care of a database requires more time and therefore more money. There's a break-even point somewhere (not that I claim to know exactly where that is).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh please, comparing a few billion distributed over years and years in government projects to the multi-hundred-billion-dollar-a-year oil cartel is shameful "journalism." There's no science in this opinion piece, it's just Glenn Beck style arrow graph tin foil hat nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER12> This whole "climategate" is smelling like hipocrisy in more than one way.

For 8 years Republicans raised a war against science by repressing environmental research by NASA and EPA, blocking stem cell research, supporting creationism and fighting the teaching of evolution.

Now, because one University in UK leaked a few comments out of context and concealed data and methodology they are "oh-so-shocked!" about all global warming research.</comment>


BattleBots may be coming back in 2015 - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1555995549/bring-robot-combat-back-to-your-screen

<comment><USER2> I'd pledge in a second if there was any mention of fixing the rules that made it boring to watch in the first place. Everything became a wedge or a spinning can o' doom.</comment>


Google seals deal for new offices at NASA center - <AUTHOR> http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080605/tbs-google-expansion-f8250da.html <comment><USER2> "the new campus, which will begin construction in 2013 and will include some housing for employees."

I've often thought that if a big tech firm were to buy an apartment building, fit it out like dorms but with decent sized rooms, nice furniture, etc, wire it all up and let employees live there rent-free, the productivity gains would pay for it easily. Give people interesting problems to work on (or the freedom to find their own) and they'll basically work all the hours God sends, so it's about cutting down on distractions.

'Course those geeks would be burnt out in a few years if they weren't careful, but for new grads just moved to town, why not?

<comment><USER3> And then they could create company stores and pay in company money. It would be a closed system!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if Google's Director of Search Quality or Head of Research or whatever his title is had anything to do with this.</comment>


Ask HN:  Is viral marketing effective for sites/apps with high IQ users? - <AUTHOR>

I get the impression that smarter people are less likely to recommend a site/app to their friends.
Is this so in your experience?
If so, what sort of marketing would be effective for high IQ people? <comment><USER2> I get the opposite impression: smarter people are _more_ likely to recommend a site/app to their friends, both because they tend to have broader circles of friends and because they like the ego boost that comes from knowing about a site that their friends didn't.

They're just more discriminating: you have to be genuinely useful, because they lose face if they recommend a site and their friends try it out and say "WTF are you telling me about this for? It sucks!" Actually, that applies to people of all IQs, but smarter people are probably more likely to apply the "This sucks" label to a site.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are some apps that I do recommend quite a lot. But I don't usually send an invite without asking first, and I'd _never_ upload my contacts or let you log into my email to fetch them. I've sold a lot of family and friends on Aardvark and a few on Twitter, usually face to face.

I'm not as likely to invite all my friends to play some stupid game on facebook or send them flair for their myspace page; I'm not above playing with these silly things, but I wouldn't want them spamming me. The difference is that Aardvark and Twitter actually increase the quality of life of the people who use them.

To get high IQ people to virally market your app, it just has to reach a higher standard of quality. It has to actually be worth telling people about.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you discover that smart people will not recommend your application, the problem doesn't lie in the marketing.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.chromeexperiments.com/> comes to mind.

</comment><comment><USER6> i don't think so. i don't get that impression. nope. flattery.

</comment><comment> onreact-com What do you mean by "high IQ"? Last time I measured mine at 16 I got an IQ of 120. So do you want to sell to intelligent kids? Or do you actually mean educated people, intellectuals, early adopters or similar groups? Or do you mean nerds? High IQ doesn't mean much. You can be a serial killer with a high IQ.

Viral marketing works for different kinds of people depending on the campaign, product and desired audience.</comment>


Apple's Next Step: 3D, Wii-Like Gaming? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/05/apples-next-ste.html <comment><USER2> That might explain Apple's purchase of PA Semiconductor ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173830> ). A successor to the Apple Pippin ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin> ) could be successful in today's market. Apple can efficiently utilise processor designs similar to those found in contemporary consoles. Plus, it could extend the "halo effect" of the iPod and the iPhone. For example, consumers are keen to access the web on the iPhone and a console with similar capabilities would offer better resolution and faster access.

Consumers would probably like wireless broadband, OSX Leopard, Safari, a 48 inch screen and a Wiimote.</comment>


NSA Concedes Hadoop Beats Its Pricey Alternatives - <AUTHOR> http://readwrite.com/2013/06/21/nsa-concedes-hadoop-beats-its-pricey-alternatives

<comment><USER2> People bemoan how all the smart people ate working in finance. Look on the bright side: they're not working for the NSA.</comment>


IT departments won't exist in five years - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9239815/IT_departments_won_t_exist_in_five_years <comment><USER3> Ah yes, the annual IT won't exist article from Computerworld.

Two big problems. The first is legal. Records and the handling of records are an amazingly complicated problem. Not so much from the storage[1], but access and preservation in the face of lawsuits.

The other is political. It is amazing all of the political processes that apply to machines. From access to locking down certain parts (e.g. cameras in research organizations). Maybe external companies will take over the entire function, but I doubt it lasts past the first three day failure to access documents in the cloud.

1) although from a technical point of view, enterprise document stores are super unfriendly. think giving code control with a crappier interface to Admin Assistants.

<comment><USER4> I'd suggest a third problem, networking effects.

Consider the example of a team using LucidChart rather than Visio. That's fine for internal use, but if you work for a firm that contracts with others, then you need to be able to read the Visio files they send you (and vice-versa).

<comment><USER5> If you use lucidcharts, then, as a customer you have the right to say, "send me lucidcharts" (I don't know if that's necessarily how that particular service works, I've never used it). Now, if lucidcharts is that good for you and your contractor won't use it, then that's an opportunity for someone else to swoop in and offer the service you'd like to pay for.

<comment><USER6> This assumes that there isn't already a pre-existing relationship with the current contractor and that the quality of work provided by all contractors are the same. It's also saying you can get up to speed with the new contractor/service right away. Not saying it's not possible but there are some switching costs involved.

<comment><USER7> It also assumes the contractors refuse to use lucidcharts, which when faced with the possibility of losing business, seems unlikely to me.

<comment><USER8> I know I've refused to use random tools customers have pulled out of the air before. There are definitely quality control issues at times

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Meh. I have seen _this exact article_ approximately ten times between 2000 and now; the only thing changing are the buzzwords. "IT departments won't exist in five years [because OMG $NEWEST_FLASHY_GADGET]". What about some flying cars? We've been getting those "five years from now" since about 1930...

<comment><USER10> Thin clients mean less IT!

Thick clients mean less IT!

VDI means less IT!

Citrix means less IT!

Terminals services means less IT!

Drupal/Wordpress means no more web devs!

Ipads mean less IT!

Mobile means less IT!

Cloud means less IT!

If anything, these things tend to create more IT jobs. Now we need another helpdesk guy to handle everyone's mobile devices, a MDM server, someone or run that, a better local wifi network, a more secure wifi network, etc etc.

<comment><USER11> That said, many of those things did actually result in "less IT" in the sense that fewer people can now run larger installs.

For instance, I have a team of four people to run 400+ physical machines, whereas in 2000, I needed a team of ten or so to do a similar job.

<comment><USER9> More precisely, "less IT for _that one task_ , while the number of IT tasks grows ever larger".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Stupid clickbait.

Anyone who thinks that every young person is so technically apt that they won't need an IT department to handle the network, servers, backups, etc. doesn't know very many young people.

Sure, young people are familiar with Gmail, Word, etc. at a higher rate than old people. But a lot of young people still don't know how to configure a router's firewall rules.

Small companies don't necessarily need an IT department, but big companies always will because their IT needs are more complicated. Duh.

<comment><USER13> The point is more, what network? servers? backups? if all you need for your business is handled over encrypted connections to hosted services, another company is your server, and they do your backups. Do you even need a network in a traditional sense, or do you just have 4G on your devices through a company plan?

IT will never go away, but for many common scenarios it becomes a simpler problem that needs fewer dedicated resources. A lot of young people don't know how to control a modem with AT commands. A lot of young people don't understand how to resolve IRQ conflicts.

Why do you need to configure a router's firewall rules? You only really need a configurable firewall if you expect to receive incoming connections. The servers that are going to exist on your own premises instead of as cloud/saas solutions or just colocated are already decreasing. As they decrease, the need to support them shifts to the businesses that operate those services.

Eventually in those circumstances, it's only the planning, implementation and migration that requires technical know-how. Well, and those creating the services.

<comment><USER11> Anything beyond basic, generic "IT" will need people to manage it.

Is everyone on 4G wireless? How do you control security and access to company intellectual property? You just trust third party solutions that could go down at any time?

There's a million reasons you'll need IT.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In the future, computers will be easier to run (like ipads) and software like email will be solved to the point that you don't need an IT department running around keeping the computers working.

That would be true if our needs were static. Realistically, as soon as email gets solved properly and we don't need an IT department to run it we will need them to run something else. Some saleforce script that downloads all the leads marked "up" and changes them to "charm" unless the salesperson's name begins with a q.

IMO, the general space occupied by what we now call IT will grow. Using the right collaboration software and building the right culture around it can have a huge impact on a company. The person in charge of that stuff could be a pretty important person for a lot of companies in the future.

<comment><USER15> The classic homeostatic fallacy. People routinely forget that history is not linear. When new capabilities comes along, they just assume it will make the current world continues on its path. They fail to consider the new niches and industries that a change will create/destroy and the increasing complexity it will result in.

For example: micro computers and office software suites were going to make us more productive and thus result in the "4 day work week" since we'd have so much free time. The reality is people were laid off (don't need as many) and those that remained were doing multiple times the work.

As the "cloud" gains more traction businesses will find it easier to consume IT, but it will result in ever greater consumption of IT services and more elaborate use of them in business. Figure out exactly how and you'll be a millionaire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not even going to attempt to read this article. What I will say is I can remember in the late 80's early 90's management declaring that programming would be dead within 10 years and you would only have to describe what you wanted done to a computer.

<comment><USER17> Always makes me laugh. Most people can't describe what they want done to a person, let alone a computer.

<comment><USER9> Oh, _come on_ : you mean that I can't just tell the computer "Do What I Mean" and have it accomplished?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> IT departments will always exist in the Enterprise.

I work for a major ISP in the UK and they will never move to cloud for their core systems (Network, CMR, Billing, Provisioning). If you are trying to sell any software to them, they will ask you if you can provide a build that they can then deploy on their servers. Forget cloud computing. That may work for some teams and some functions within the business (e.g. marketing, online dev, UX) but the core functions, where you'll find customers' data, will never be moved to the cloud.

<comment><USER19> Never is a word that should never be used (har har): it is a futile attempt to shackle the future with the biases of the present, and unless you have a time machine it is a statement that can't be proven.

<comment><USER20> Entropy in a closed system will never decrease. Enjoy your shackles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "IT departments won't look quite the same in five years as they do now".

</comment><comment><USER22> One of the better lessons I learned in Social Studies class in high school was that history swings back-and-forth like a pendulum. We go from one extreme to another.

We are in the era of BYOD and SaaS. We started with dumb terminals connected to mainframes, moved to standalone PCs, transitioned to client/server, got connected to the internet/web with browsers and now are connected globally to cloud-based servers and services.

There is a role for IT departments. What is certain is that the role of IT will shift to adapt to the times.

</comment><comment><USER23> I saw this from Sam Altman a few months back: [http://blog.samaltman.com/software-to-avoid-the-software- peo...](http://blog.samaltman.com/software-to-avoid-the-software-people)

To paraphrase "A few years ago, many of the Y Combinator B2B startups wrote tools for the developers in other companies" and how that has changed resulting in "so now the startups are trying to avoid the developers at the other company (so they don't get blocked) and sell to the person who is waiting in the internal development queue."

I was selling enterprise SaaS in 2000 (yep, when we were called "ASP's") and back then we were writing and reading about how one of our greatest strengths was allowing business owners to avoid their own internal IT departments. One theory on the reason why Salesforce.com was/is the most successful SaaS company is because it targeted the VP of Sales (initially) This was the most "rebellious" leadership profile who often didn't connect well with a CIO and basically used their own budget to end around IT and get the tool into the hands of their end users.

I think - based on this coming up to being a documented 15 year + theory - <USER2> probably needs some fresher thought around how the role of the IT department will morph vs not exist.

<comment><USER24> That sales strategy is exactly what the sales team at my day job does; our software requires heavy buy-in from IT departments, and the payoff isn't in the IT realm but more for the foot soldiers on the ground (and of course, the bottom-line).

At one point, it became obvious that it was much easier to wine & dine the non-technical executives than it was to win over the CTO. Also, it's a double- win since even if you had managed to win over the CTO, they'd (the CTO + our sales team) would still have to win over the other executives. However, if you flip that around, the CTO is really the only one you have to convince, and if you've made a good enough case upfront then the CTO will have a really hard time stopping it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Yes...certainly the commoditization of IT equipment and its use in nearly every job function will lead to decreased dependance on IT departments (?).

I've been more or less involved in medium-sized IT shops my whole carrer, and while it's true that some roles have been removed, many persist (and new ones just keep coming).

Processes management and security never die, nor should they. Groups of people above a certain size need someone who is designated to make sure they work efficiently and effectively with technology. Someone has to know that app is out there before you can use it, and somebody needs to know how it works, what the terms are, and how to back it up before you put all of your confidential company data on it.

Hardware and configuration management will probably die with the PC (I hope), but I think that may be more than 5 years out for most businesses.

Trainings work. Even glossy, easy-to-use software can benefit if someone knows the use case and shares the possibilities with the users (surprisingly, not everyone knows they _can_ share a link to a dropbox file).

Managing services is a lot more than just managing servers. Outsourcing stuff (gmail, salesforce, whatever) or running it yourself (exchange) have both made the lives of sysadmins a lot easier recently, but the config and integration work just keeps growing. It makes sense because the more options exist, the more work there is.

Not to mention that while we can do so much more with all of these new toys than we could 5 years ago, your average user is still spending about the same amount of time searching for it, signing up, getting it, learning it, and googling when he can't figure out why it's not doing the thing it needs to do.

</comment><comment><USER26> IT departments will exist but their role will change as the majority of companies move towards SaaS.

At <https://starthq.com> we are working to make their job easier by making it possible to manage the various SaaS apps, accounts and integrations.

</comment><comment><USER27> BS. This article seriously misjudges the amount of tech troglodytes in the average corporate office.

</comment><comment><USER28> I want to say a few things:

* I also heard that "IT Doesn't Matter" - that article by Nicholas G. Carr from the early 2000's.

* yes there is an overarching trend towards the consumerization of IT, but also IT operations is bleeding into development via devops. Therefore did IT disappear or just evolve or migrate?

* basically the article says the business side of the house has more power nowadays and in the future as apps/processes get more cloudified. Or antoher way to put it, the business end gets more autonomous with what tools they use. a * you will still have IT people. Just they will be doing different things. possibly less skilled? So as we all know, they need to evolve or be crushed as we face a global race to the bottom for wages.

</comment><comment><USER29> Any small/medium business should SaaS out as many traditional IT functions as possible. But still you will always need someone technical to connect the dots between all of the different services you rely on.

<comment><USER15> You only want your core competencies to be in house. Log backups and payroll are not what differentiate you. They'll still be room for the mixers of the special sauce on the inside given the ease with which IP can disappear in other outsourcing countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> _> In five years, McBride said, companies will have to ensure they're matching their enabling technology to the demographic of that time._

The idea that you have to match your tech to the user in a company (at least that closely) is a little bit silly. If they're not smart enough to learn to use your new tech, they're not smart enough to work there at all. Fire them.

Unless it's like a burger bar or something I suppose. But really, they're adults. This sort of 'All our works are mentally retarded' shtick is getting a bit old.

<comment><USER31> Not _all_ technologies are equivalent though. Different tech can have different learning curves, and the shape/length of the learning curve for the same technology can vary for different populations or types of work. I agree that competent employees should be able to learn any technology you choose, given sufficient time and training. But if you can do so without sacrificing other important goals, typically a company will want to choose stuff that their particular set of employees can learn more quickly, in a less error- prone way, and with less training needed. To take an extreme case, if a particular interface requires strong working knowledge of Python scripting to use effectively, and your employees include a number of people who've never programmed before, then the time and resources needed to train them up may be large. On the other hand, if most of your employees are already Python programmers, it may not be an issue at all.

<comment><USER30> Well, by reasonable context. I'm sure we can all come up with fringe cases where the thing's just a UI disaster. For any reasonably designed bit of software though, it's hard to imagine it being hard to use - especially when you've already used something in the same general class.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> ComputerWorld's "five years" is like Tom Friedman's "six months" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit>)

</comment><comment><USER33> "Because we're switching from a desktop-based office productivity suite to an online-based suite, we can expect the IT department to go away."

Said no one ever.

</comment><comment><USER34> Daft. Even if any company could just get its workers to manage their own IT needs it doesn't mean its cost efficient. The average hourly wage of IT support is often going to be less than the people they are supporting (i.e. programmers managers). They are also a hell of a lot faster at doing things since they do it every day

</comment><comment><USER35> Right and Cobol vanished years ago.

<comment><USER9> Well, it kind of did: when was the last time you _saw_ Cobol? But that's just a complicated way of saying "invisibility != nonexistence" ;)

<comment><USER36> Yeah, I just used a COBOL app at work about an hour ago, but as far as I know only a mysterious, nearly extinct secret society of wizards known as COBOL Developers have access to see or touch the eldritch horror that is the source code of this application, which is in fact older than I am.

COBOL didn't go anywhere. COBOL developers, on the other hand...

<comment><USER9> If it's secret, how can you tell it's extinct? For all you know, your workplace might be teeming with secret wizards ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Great, we can redeploy all the techs to help us achieve the paperless office.

</comment><comment><USER38> Yes, they will. Companies are full of valuable data and computer security is hard. That is the leading job of the IT department these days and will be for decades to come.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Cars won't exist in five years." - Also valid. They will have morphed into a new form with new technologies.

<comment><USER15> Funny how the future is rarely what people predict. I still love those GM movie reels from 1955 about the flying cars of 1990. The future was planetary exploration, rocket ships and flying cars. Easy access to information wasn't even on the radar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm reminded of <http://xkcd.com/927/>

</comment><comment><USER41> Companies still have internal IT departments??

</comment><comment><USER42> If only...</comment>


What happened with your Internet last night, and what we are doing about it - <AUTHOR> http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/what-happened-with-your-internet-last-night-and-what-we-are-doing-about-it <comment><USER2> The trouble description seems a bit off. They had a backbone switch in San Jose fail (according to mtr), but it only affected DNS depending on your routing. In my case, 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206 were both on the working side of the switch, but a lot of other sites and systems weren't -- even when accessing by IP. So it wasn't really a DNS issue.

I couldn't ping Hurricane Electric servers, but Slashdot worked OK for example.

The frustrating thing was that I was going through a Sacramento hop first but still couldn't reach systems in Reno -- I thought there was fiber all the way up the 80 corridor, but apparently most of my Comcast traffic has to go to San Jose before it can proceed East.

<comment><USER3>
        but a lot of other sites and systems weren't -- even when
        accessing by IP. So it wasn't really a DNS issue.

That's just an intermittent issue that Comcast customers deal with--I experienced that in Indiana a couple of months ago.

I believe that it relates to them re-jiggering routers such that the appropriate default gateway for your modem changes, but because your modem is already up, it doesn't get notified of the change. So the modem doesn't send the message to the correct router, and the router it sends it to may or may not know how to get it to the destination.

<comment><USER2> I typically have logs streaming through terminal windows from several servers and multitask online -- I notice even brief transient network issues. FWIW what you're describing hasn't been a problem for me (though I don't doubt it is for lots of customers), and the San Jose outage was definitely out of the ordinary.

Anyway, I wish Sacramento was a bigger network hub, is all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What a generous window of time...

        This $5 credit offer is being extended to our customers with active XFINITY Internet service in
        California, Washington State, and Tucson, Arizona who were affected by the issue with our DNS
        servers that was first reported on 6/1/15. The form above will be available until 6/11/15

<comment><USER5> Comcast exists to prove that government isn't always less efficient at providing service than the private sector.

<comment><USER6> Comcast doesn't face typical market competition; it is uncommon for it's customers to have good alternatives. That's not a good representation of the efficiency and quality the private sector produces.

<comment><USER7> Surely no true scotsman....

<comment><USER6> I think it's fair to say that taking any single company and holding it as evidence of what the private sector produces is flawed, but Comcast is a particularly flawed example. Likewise with any single government entity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's nice. I figured out what was going on (though I was very frustrated by that point) and switched my DNS servers to Google's public DNS servers (22.214.171.124 & 188.8.131.52) which worked fine. I figured that calling would be a waste of both my time and Comcast's - the people on the other end of the phone have no idea how long a fix is going to take other than 'as soon as possible'.

The straightforward explanation and humble acceptance of responsibility were a refreshing surprise, however. A $5 credit is not that big a deal but it is good to see a firm putting its money where its mouth is instead of trying to deflect or minimize the disruption to customers.

<comment><USER9> So Google runs a public DNS service too? First time hearing this. I was annoyed with the constant DNS outages but did not do anything.

<comment><USER10> 126.96.36.199 man, what else do you ping to see if the internet is working?

<comment><USER11> 127.0.0.1, but I do get quite a few false positives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be nice if these regulated monopolies would actually charge a decent flat price instead of promo rates that then jack up 6, 12 or 24 months later.

This $5 is a different percentage of about 6 different price levels for Internet.

</comment><comment><USER13> How generous of them to offer this for anyone who happens to learn about it in the limited time window they are offering it for... (/s)

Also: $5 is half of the $10/month modem rental fee (that I assume is commonly paid by a lot of their customers who don't know any better) on a ~$70 modem (probably much cheaper at the scale they buy them at) that has probably been paid for in rental fees 5 times over already.

</comment><comment><USER14> If my recent experiences with them in regards to DNS is any indicator, their DNS infrastructure is a colossal joke. 4 days to get a reverse DNS entry done? Really?

I wont even mention the typos in some of their SOA records.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure if $5 adequately compensates for the productivity (and in some cases entertainment) loss encountered. I guess that equates to roughly a day's credit depending on what your plan is like. Plus I don't see why they require us to file a compensation claim, when they could just credit every account that was in the affected areas.

I wonder if they would be compensating more if the Internet and TV went down during a big event like the NBA Finals yesterday.

<comment><USER15> Step outside. Do some jumping jacks. Talk to your kids.

You pay $150 for Comcast Internet?

Obviously requiring an opt in cuts the payout by 99%.

<comment><USER16> Technically I pay $224/mo for Comcast Internet, but apparently (home) business customers aren't eligible...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> NOW it makes sense.

I was writing up a tutorial which involves working with subdomains. I was QAing the tutorial by following the tutorial along but the DNS changes wouldn't work. I know it worked before but not this time. And meanwhile I was able to visit the websites that I usually visit.

After seeing the Comcast letter, I'm concluding that the DNS changes weren't working because of Comcast's issue. I was still able to visit websites because my home DNS server had cached DNS names.

Oh well.

</comment><comment><USER18> >We are also building a Web site that impacted customers can visit to receive their credit. We will update this post with a link to that site as soon as it is available and will share the link on Twitter through our customer support handle @comcastcares.

If you need to use a social media account name that says "company name cares" then its obvious that most customers think you don't care.

</comment><comment><USER19> My home comcast connection in SF started being extremely flaky last week and I switched over to 18.104.22.168 etc and haven't looked back.

<comment><USER3> Level 3 isn't cool with non-customers using their DNS server.

Google operates 126.96.36.199 and 184.108.40.206 that are for public use.

<comment><USER20> Level3's VP disagrees:

[http://blog.level3.com/level-3-network/a-flawed-study-of- cdn...](http://blog.level3.com/level-3-network/a-flawed-study-of-cdns-and- dns/)

"Open DNS is provided by companies like OpenDNS, Google _and Level 3_. You can use it wherever you are on the Internet with no restrictions or authentication required."

<comment><USER3> Huh, that's interesting. As an organization, there's no public info on the availability of those servers.

Last year they showed ads for failed DNS requests for non-customers. [http://james.bertelson.me/blog/2014/01/level-3-are-now- hijac...](http://james.bertelson.me/blog/2014/01/level-3-are-now-hijacking- failed-dns-requests-for-ad-revenue-on-4-2-2-x/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So either business class customers were not effected, or are not eligible - personally. I didn't notice a DNS outage, I run my own DNS locally.</comment>


Google is distributing free Chrome notebooks (US only) - <AUTHOR> https://services.google.com/fb/forms/cr48basic <comment><AUTHOR> A link popped up within unstable Chrome, inviting me to test drive the Chrome notebook. Unfortunately I'm out of US. <http://skitch.com/juvenn/rrnm5/selection-019></comment>


Apple finally enters the world's biggest mobile market: China - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/08/27/apple-finally-enters-the-worlds-biggest-mobile-market-china-to-get-the-iphone-in-october/ <comment><USER2> Everyone always gets stars in their eyes about China, don't believe the hype. Few foreign companies actually do well. Ask Blizzard for instance how it's going for them with WoW. If you're not Chinese you will be manipulated and milked for what you're worth.

China Unicom is also a distant second place in subscriber numbers to China Mobile (130M vs 497M). Add to that that the high price (1.5 months of a typical salary for a Beijing resident) and that this is available only on a term contract (~60% of subscribers in China are pay as you go and most could not change to a contract even if they wanted) and you probably have a potential market about the size of Canada for Apple.

And WIFI disabled? WTF? Everywhere in China has free WIFI and many phones have it. Who's going to want it with that restriction?

<comment><USER3> And they already have a bazillion really awesome mobile phones too. The iPhone is nice, but it is actually behind many phones in Asia...

<comment><USER4> I am just curious to see the ones that are better than the iPhone. Care to post any links to them?</comment></comment></comment>


Obfuscated C: ASCII fluid simulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.ioccc.org/2012/endoh1/hint.html

<comment><USER2> I bundled it in a git repo to make life easier :)

[http://github.com/gardaud/endoh](http://github.com/gardaud/endoh)</comment>