California, and the US, shouldn't be afraid of density and upzoning - <AUTHOR> https://www.curbed.com/2019/12/6/20998974/california-real-estate-housing-zoning-density-affordable <comment><USER2> Wake me up when the Bay Area (and California, and other places) becomes community-minded enough to care about solutions.

My experience has been that it's a bunch of factions who can't/won't work together toward a common good.

Until that changes, you can create all the smart, rational, reasonable, fact- based, win-win proposals you want, but they aren't going to happen if people aren't even trying to cooperate.

<comment><USER3> SF seems only concerned with political issues. Ensuring that convicted felons are "justice involved persons" and that they have no change in privilege than someone who never broke the law in the first place.

<comment><USER4> When someone has served their debt to society, they _should_ be treated similar to someone who was never in prison. If you want to punish someone further, keep them in prison; Don't let them go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The flip side of density increases is the changes in culture and required increase in shared resource organization.

I've lived in NYC and in the country. You can't simply increase housing density and have it work. You have to learn different ways to interact with people. You have to create shared transportation and parks infrastructure. And you have to admit there are trade offs.

You do lose a lot when moving toward very high density cities. The night sky. Quiet. Calmness. Yards.

<comment><USER6> > The night sky

There's no night sky in any suburb though ?

<comment><USER7> You can generally see more of the sky in the suburbs and there is about a 1 mag difference. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> California, firstly shouldn't be afraid of building: period. I mean, I'm looking at the voting pamphlet, at the mayors and the local politicians: all bragging about how many construction projects they've stopped and all the building they've prevented. It's sickening. I couldn't find a single candidate that didn't brag about preventing housing construction.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is fluff. Sure if you build a few multi families in 10% of lots it wont affect neighborhood characteristics much because you're only adding 10-20% more housing.

Its doubling and quadrupling (even 10x) the number of housing units that is really needed and that affects everything - more cars, more schoolkids, more water, more trash, more crowds.

<comment><USER10> >and that affects everything - more cars

This right here is the root problem. If you increase housing density in America, everyone expects a place to put their car, and to be able to use a car to get around, so you don't improve stuff that much. We need to get rid of cars altogether as a primary people-mover; then you can really build things closer together, and not have to waste _so_ much space on parking lots.

Trash and water aren't problems; they don't take up a lot of space, though you do need a source of freshwater to supply the city, but unless you're in the desert that shouldn't be that big a problem. Schoolkids aren't a big problem in urban areas: people aren't having kids any more.

<comment><USER11> I think attitudes will change when owning a car becomes more of an inconvenience than a convenience.

Dense housing is the start of making it more inconvenient. Then, once owning a car is less convenient than other modes of transit, will we see alternatives that are better for those areas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At least in my Bay Area town, the people already live here.

We have serious problems with people living in RVs taking over entire streets. They don't just live in the RVs quietly. They spread their stuff (furniture, garbage, sometimes large collections of stolen goods) all over the street. They harass nearby businesses and homeowners. They park in ways that are not just technically illegal, but dangerous to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Crime has gone up in nearby areas. I'm not saying RV people are all responsible for the crimes, but I'm aware of several instances where the crimes have been committed by the RV people. They're not all homeless, either. Many of them own homes in the East Bay or further afield and just do a week long commute to their $100K+ peninsula jobs.

Single family houses are housing 6-10 adults. Their cars are all over the streets. Some neighborhoods are can barely be navigated, and its dangerous for driver and pedestrian alike.

We'd _all_ be better off if there were affordable apartments (with parking garages) for people to live in. We'd see an increase in city revenue. We'd reclaim our streets. We'd have a cleaner city. We'd have fewer accidents and safer walks. We'd no longer have city council members hiding behind 'compassion' when it comes to removing the RVs.

Yet _every single development_ is opposed.

"It will make traffic worse." Not conceivably possible. Every development includes requirements of $$ to improve nearby streets and appropriate parking. Parking has gotten so much easier since one major development included public parking. (One guy argued that the amount of money a business was willing to offer wasn't enough to fix a problem area. As if it is not the responsibility of the city, county, and state to fix the existing problem. Or as if $X million is worse than $0 million for fixing a problem we already have.)

"That area is already a mess!" Yes. It is. That's why it needs to be improved.

"It only adds X homes!" X is better than zero. They're also generally trying to add them near downtown and public transport.

"It will bring more people to the area!" I don't have the numbers on this, but I suspect this is largely a red herring. Anecdotally, several of my friends have left the area, many still live with their parents after graduating, and my girlfriend wants to leave.

"They're only building luxury apartments!" So? It means more houses. It means all the houses get more affordable because supply is trying to meet demand.

"But the town will be so different!" Different than when you grew up in 1965? It's already different. And it's trash. It'll be different from now and it will be better because it will actually be meeting our needs.

"But my property values!" Just kidding. No one ever says this, but they all mean it.

<comment><USER12> Mountain view is kind of good in this regard. Few years ago they gave a bunch of permits to apartments, and now they started to being built. It is making city look much more modern, and house values will end up increasing due to that

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> In my city, they've been making a strong effort to do exactly what the article recommends.

My observation is that it absolutely does change the character of a neighborhood. Whether that change is bad, neutral, or good depends entirely on what sort of character you prefer. But there's no getting around the fact that greater density means that the area will be very different.

Personally, none of this scares me. I consider it unfortunate, but it's also probably inevitable.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this is a terrible argument.

Talking about being "afraid of density" shifts the argument and action away from progress. The discussion should be that *we should try to avoid density" and we're failing at that.

We need:

1) Faster and more efficient travel to/from hubs.

2) Organizations to embrace remote work.

<comment><USER15> Why should we avoid density? Societies get more urban as they progress. Density _is_ the way of progress. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be smart and thoughtful about it, but ultimately density should be the goal.

<comment><USER16> >Societies get more urban as they progress

I think that's more of a side effect of a population increase. Though as we've seen over the past few decades, the most advanced societies tend to have a decrease in birth rates after a certain point. I don't think we should be striving to turn the entire Earth into Kowloon.

<comment><USER11> > I think that's more of a side effect of a population increase.

I don't think so.

Cities are much more efficient for the masses.

If you have 20 people that all evenly dispersed within 20 square miles, or 20 people within a square mile, more progress can be made in the square mile.

<comment> andy-x That depends entirely on your definition of a progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Who are the decisions makers for how a lot is zoned? Is it home owners, city council, etc.? Is it neighborhood based, city based?

<comment><USER12> City. Residents vote for council

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Zoning laws should just be removed entirely.

</comment><comment><USER19> People are allowed to make their own local decisions about how they want to live and govern. The notion that either California or the US should override local zoning laws is authoritarian, and does away with the agency of voters.

I think there is a place for dense communities as well as non-dense ones. Different people need and thrive with different environments. Recently the focus on pushing only high-density (usually from the new wave of 'urbanist' blogs) looks to demonize anything that isn't high-density urban, and frankly it feels very us versus them.

</comment><comment><USER20> Building won't fix the problem. A significant proportion of existing dwellings are unoccupied or under-occupied. They are unoccupied because we allow people to speculate on real estate. Much of the real estate is bought by rich foreign investors and multinational corporations. This is a problem in many places of the world and just another aspect of globalization.

Given all that, who benefits when new units are built? The developers obviously make money. The local government gets some mad money to play with. But mostly the real estate finance industry and big multinational corporations.

Economists have run the numbers, the little guy doesn't benefit at all from efforts to increase the housing supply. It can't be increased enough to lower prices, it merely expands the speculative market, adding more wealth to the bottom line of the big winners in the game.

<comment><USER21> > A significant proportion of existing dwellings are unoccupied or under- > occupied.

Source? I can't imagine this is true given the ridiculous rent that a dwelling commands. Why leave cash on the table?</comment></comment>


On Refusing to Disclose Your Salary in a Job Interview  - <AUTHOR> http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/on-refusing-to-disclose-your-salary-in-a-job-interview/ <comment><USER2> I've only changed jobs once, but I do talk to enough people who are responsible for hiring to know some of the thought processes.

Potential employers want to know your salary so that they can avoid paying you more than required. What's the required amount? The benchmark that's informally thrown around is 20% more than the last pay. It seems that's the magic number to convince people that it is worth the hassle of changing jobs, trying to fit into a new environment...

One thing they (the hiring people) also like to know is how long you stayed at a job. Using industry standards for yearly increments, based on your past salary, they can guess your starting point or even guess whether you have had any increments.

What they will then do is make an educated guess whether you are a sucker for punishment. If they can tell you've been in a job for some time without any pay movement, they've won. They know it must have been some tremendous push factor that made you want to leave, something along the lines that you're tired of not getting more monetary compensation or job satisfaction has fallen till unspeakable lows. Power in the negotiation swings to their side.

I think when negotiating anything, it is always best to reveal as little as possible. Your past salary is one of them.

On another note, and this is anecdotal evidence - employers who pay just enough for you to jump ship and join their company and NOT pay you for the value of the work you're about to do or that they know you can contribute, are most likely employers who will bleed you to death in the work environment.

<comment><USER3> >employers who pay just enough for you to jump ship and join their company and NOT pay you for the value of the work you're about to do or that they know you can contribute, are most likely employers who will bleed you to death in the work environment.

This is happening to me currently

<comment><USER4> If you missed this, it might be helpful: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1677013>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "As a matter of professional courtesy, I decline to answer questions about specific policies of previous employers. Your client should be able to appreciate this, considering that a few years from now it will be their trust that I am protecting."

<comment><USER6> An alternate version:

"Unfortunately, like many other aspects of my employment, my compensation is covered under NDA with my previous employer. I take my promise not to disclose very seriously."

If you did sign an NDA, in all likelihood you _cannot_ disclose your salary without violating the terms.

Or, you could just be direct, like I was the last time I did interviews:

"How much do you earn at your current position?"

"The salary of an academic at a public institution, and I expect to be paid more if I work for your company."

<comment><USER7> It's not really true that you can't disclose your salary after signing a generic NDA, but it's a valid argument to say that it'd be discourteous to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I interviewed at a small company my friend worked at (he was highly placed so his reference all but guaranteed the job). Sailed through the interview process (standardized C/C++ programming test - ugh) until I met with the CEO. He asked me what my salary was and I declined, stating that I wanted to hear what salary range they had in mind for the position. The CEO became very angry, claiming that in all his years no one had ever refused to disclose their salary. Interview was ended promptly and I got an email a couple days later saying they couldn't offer me the job.

I talked to my friend about it after and he was very surprised about what happened. Everyone else on the team liked me but the CEO nixed the deal claiming I was difficult. I think you need to be prepared for this kind of reaction if you choose to not disclose your salary. Though in retrospect, I'm glad I didn't end up taking the job. My friend left after a year after butting heads too often with the CEO.

<comment><USER9> Sounds like you saved yourself a lot of pain. A nice rule of thumb for jobs can probably be- if you get axed from a job by doing something completely rational like this you should never work at that company. You got to remember once you get hired you have to work there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've noticed a disturbing trend for some of the larger recruitment agencies in London to insist on knowing your salary. They've refused to pass on my CV without it. Worse, they claim it's the HR departments who are driving this, but that's plainly false - I've asked several very senior HR people and they've never heard of an HR department requiring current salary details along with CVs.

I suspect that the agencies are aggressively trying to gather valuable salary data, for their own purposes.

<comment><USER11> Last time I went for an interview I learned that you should not be honest about your salary ... let me try to explain.

I am at a certain level in a big company with a salary range that is quite large. Many people at my level earn £5000 - £7000 more than me, mainly because they have been around in the company a lot longer.

In my last interview, I was offered a job and the company offered me my current salary + about £5000 (I was honest about what I was earning when they asked). Now, being that many of my collegues were currently earning that for doing the same job as me, I always wondered if they would still have offered me a £5000 bump if I had exaggerated my salary by £5k to start with.

I guess I will never know, and I didn't take that job for other reasons, but the guy really wanted me to work there, and I got the impression that he was trying to tempt me in with an offer that is just big enough compared to my current salary, without really reflecting on my skills and what they were worth.

I decided then that my salary would be exaggerated a little to any agencys or interviewers who ask so I can try and negotiate a better deal, ethical or not.

<comment><USER12> Lying doesn't seem like the best way to start a new professional relationship. Perhaps you could share your salary expectations instead.

<comment><USER11> Maybe correct. Ideally I'd like them to make me an offer based on what they think I am worth, considering market rates etc.

However if they insist on me revealing my salary, I am going to assume its so they have try and gauge how much it would take to make me jump to them, which is (in my mind) on the same ethical level as my exaggerating my existing salary to try and negotiate a better deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think there are a few edge cases where you can disclose your salary, like if you're on the high end because you've been at a company for a long time, and don't expect to get that much elsewhere, you can tell them, and also tell them you're flexible.

However, if you're looking to move up, don't tell anyone. Let them give you a number, and you can then choose to negotiate. If you're getting 110 now and want to move to 120, but they offer 80, obviously this isn't a good fit, even if they could be convinced to go higher.

When a recruiter calls you, demand two things before spending time on an interview (even a phone one). Salary expecations, and details about the team, like the manager's name, or the specific product, or something. This will weed out the recruiters who just scan public job listings, and let you deal with the ones who are actually doing their job and playing matchmaker. It will save you a ton of time and stress.

<comment><USER14> Ummm, for the high end case, it's more like "You can tell them and have them not hire you because they fear you'll be dissatisfied at making less money".

<comment><USER13> You might be surprised how many people out there have fooled themselves into thinking their company is so great that people will work for them for a discount.

"I don't pay good wages because I have a lot of money; I have a lot of money because I pay good wages." - Robert Bosch

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find overall HR/recruiting at big organizations are totally out of hand lately, not sure if they have always been. They ask a bunch of probing personal questions, such as salary, if they offer you a job you have less then 24 hours to decide, even though the whole interview process took several weeks, and the job might involve packing up and relocating across the country, etc.

I've trained myself to start each conversation with the recruiter with the following: I will not divulge my salary information, and I will need at least 14 days from the time I get the job offer to decide. If you are up front it usually isn't a problem. Also it is best to get the hiring manager's contact information so you can potentially go over the recruiter's head. At the end of the day, the HM will care much more then the recruiter.

<comment><USER16> I've found that recruiters often invent the "24 hours to decide" bit so that they can force your hand and "close" the transaction.

I would never dream of forcing someone to make such an important decision in such a short period of time.

<comment><USER17> I think you're right. They want to close the deal because they may have been searching for a new hire for a while, and they can only field ONE offer at a time. If you decline, they want to know as soon as possible so they can offer to the next choice. If every offer takes two weeks to resolve, it could take a month or two to make a hire AFTER a number of good candidates have come through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I relocated to US in 2007 after working in India for about 8 years. My best friend also moved to US and we were both working in the same company in the US. Once, while negotiating a raise, my friend brought up my salary since he knew what I was making. The HR manager sent me a polite, but firm email asking me never to discuss my salary with colleagues in the future. She painted it as a cultural thing -- that in the US people don't discuss what they make. Since then I have never disclosed my salary details to my colleague - the subject never came up actually.

It is funny how it is totally uncool to discuss your salary with your colleague, but you are expected to disclose it when asked by a stranger working for a competitor.

<comment><USER19> Don't listen to HR. They are full of shit. It's not a cultural thing. It's in HR's best interest so they just repeat it over and over again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is this common in the states? In Denmark, employers usually ask you what you expect to be paid for the job you're interviewing for, but they never ask what you are currently being paid. Ofcourse, you should always dodge the question to let them give a number first and take it from there, but still, I've never had anyone ask me specifically what I make at my current job.

<comment><USER21> "Is this common in the states? In Denmark, ..."

If they don't now, they will in a few years. We had the same evolution here in Belgium & the Netherlands, late 1990's or early 2000's recruiters wouldn't ask overly let alone require it. Nowadays they try hard to get you to disclose. I think one of the reasons is what is cited above, for the statistics for internal use. In time they will get more sophisticated and they'll start asking.

Aside, isn't there a website in Denmark where you can look up people's salaries? Or is that in Sweden?

<comment><USER22> At least there is in Norway. (Try <http://skattelister.no/> )

<comment><USER21> Oh yeah, sorry no offense to all parties involved, I tend to my you guys up ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> space-monkey My wife had this experience a while back when interviewing at a mid-tier semiconductor company. She was asked to disclose her current salary and refused. They became very insistent that the process could not continue until she disclosed it, and that they had a company policy of not giving any new hire more than a 10% bump. They ended up wanting to make her an offer anyway (she turned them down), so it's certainly possible to refuse and not lose the opportunity in some cases, even when they are very insistent.

I'm with everyone else that you don't want to work at a place so unreasonable that they won't hire you for something like this. I assume that if you asked them for a salary histogram for the position you're applying for, you'd get laughed out of the building. Maybe it would be help to mention that.

<comment><USER23> I'm glad for her sake that she turned it down, since they make a policy of never paying people what they're worth.

Never more then a 10% bump? That's just farcical. Are they afraid the sudden increase will lead to wild debauchery? _{Rolls eyes}_

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> In my experience these steps have helped me get a higher salary.

1\. Say your current salary is 20% higher than it actually is when interviewing.

2\. Once you get a job offer say you are very interested in the position you just need $5k more to accept this position today . If they say no the 1st offer will still stand.

3\. When yearly reviews come around, act grateful but slightly disappointed in the raise (unless it is HUGE).

If you feel these are dishonest that is fine, but the reality is that most companies will take advantage of you if you don't look out for yourself.

For example, If you interview for a position where the industry average is 60k and you say the range you are looking for is 45-75k. Your offer will be very close to 45k. Even though the company knows 60 is the industry average.

</comment><comment><USER25> I never tell my current salary in job interviews, you can only lose. And I never request this information.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's always seemed a little odd to me that there is such a culture of secrecy around salaries. It seems so counter-productive: it means that salary doesn't really reflect competence, effectiveness or anything else related to the work someone is doing - it just reflects someone's ability to negotiate well in an interview. I think that's a shame.

<comment><USER23> There's a culture of secrecy because it's in companies best interests to encourage one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Wouldn't it be great if companies could just come out with a figure they thought you were worth to them, not how little they could get away with or anchored on what you were worth to your previous employer.

I have noticed a stigma, admittedly on low/no skilled jobs, of people asking for salary details as part of the interview process then accepting jobs without even knowing pay rate. Does this happen at all in software, I guess with new graduates some companies would give off the "we're doing you a favor in hiring you at all" vibe.

</comment><comment><USER28> I asked someone for advice on whether or not I should tell my salary if asked during a interview or by a recruiter over the phone. My friend said, tell them. Big mistake.

It was early on my career so I was making 40K. I applied for a job that I could do with my eyes closed. I aced the interview with flying colors. Then I got a call a day after the interview from HR and the first question was "May I ask what your current salary is?" I told them. Now before I say anything someone from within the company recommended me. He told me that the average for that position and title for the company is 55-65K.

The HR person low balled me at 45K. We talked and the highest she was willing to go was 48K, she would NOT budge above that. I did the standard, let me think about it and I'll get back to you. Called her back a few days later, with my case and she still would not budge, so I turned it down.

Don't mistaken, until they give you the offer and you are filling out HR forms, do not tell them your salary, that doesn't mean lie just tell them you dont want to reveal it. One of the things I have done is give them a range if they are really pushy, usually a huge range just to make a point that I dont want to reveal it.

</comment><comment><USER29> Time ago, I remember being offered the same salary I had, or even less. They (it happened more than once) must have thought I was lying. Those interviews were very brief. Once trust is broken, there's nothing they could do to restore it.

<comment><USER4> It really was for an equal job at a comparable company?

I might apply for some more interesting jobs for a lower salary. Especially if I changed job area to something I didn't really know that well.

If I stop being a consultant, I'd probably be paid a bit less.

<comment><USER29> Worse. Similar job in a not so prestigious company. I would also take a cut (not now, I just can't earn less) to get a more interesting job. But that wasn't the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sounds like someone wants to get both goods of an issue. They wish to know your salary so that they can minimize the offer they give you. On the other hand, afterwards they firmly demand that you won't tell your colleagues what your salary is.

As long as I don't know what they pay to their employees (and thus have no reference point for negotiations) I certainly wouldn't give them my salary (and give them a nice reference point). It's an open negotiation situation, then. I have a hard limit below which I won't accept and some soft limit that I expect from the company. They have theirs. Then it's bracketing down until both are happy or the deal blows up.

<comment><USER31> though compensation is not necessarily the main thing that retains an employee, it is important. for that matter, any good hr clown will know that a compensation satisfied* employee is going to be a longer term, happy employee. why try to stiff someone out of a few potential ten's of thousand just to make the books look better?

noted that no one's really ever satisfied with their compensation, but the point being that it's not hanging over your head daily that the work you do is not commensurate with what they pay you relative to others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Some dishonest advice about this - Give them false data to boost your own negotiation. If the perceived delta between your old salary and the new one your are asking for doesn't seem unreasonable, then you can likely get it.

<comment><USER33> Or, just factor in performance bonus programs, unvested stock, other benefits, merit raise schedules, etc. Estimate optimistically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is a pet peeve of mine. So often it seem to be one of the very first questions asked, it basically seems to be de rigueur these days (and I can understand why potential employers do it, from a negotiation standpoint). It's not that I think you should try to inflate your current salary or mislead in any way, but it just seems so forward and plain impolite.

I'd be interested in any real-life experiences others might have had similar to this and whether you've managed to avoid coming off as sneaky/deceptive/dishonest as a result.

</comment><comment><USER35> I will disclose my total compensation (but not my salary) to competent recruiters/headhunters from good companies. The reason I disclose total comp is that it enables a like-for-like comparison. Now, because these recruiters know my current package, they will only contact me about substantially larger opportunities. I think this is a win-win. Based on my experience so far, I don't think that disclosing my total comp necessarily 'anchors' the package for the new role.

</comment><comment><USER36> Actually, this is very simple:

Me: I insist on maintaining certain personal requirements when conducting any business. One of those requirements happens to be never revealing salary data.

Them: Not willing or able to respect my personal requirements.

Me: Goodbye.

</comment><comment><USER37> Somebody enlighten me: in this day and age, with, you know, the Internet, why do recruiters exist at all? Why don't people just go up to companies and ask for jobs? Why don't companies go out and try to find people themselves? It seems like the results would be completely guaranteed to be better.

</comment><comment><USER38> I have no problem telling my salary, and getting screened out for it. My salary is in the upper range for my position already, so I prefer to be screened out vs. wasting my time in interviews for a position on which we never could have reached an agreement.

Also, your initial salary at a company is just a starting point. If you come in low, then prove your worth, you will get decent raises.

On the other hand, if you negotiate your way to a high salary, and fail to perform, you are first against the wall when the revolution comes.

</comment><comment><USER31> for the record, i've always disclosed my salary information directly when asked during the offer phase, this was in america. i agree with mr. sethi that this information should include all benefits, that's actually sage advice, stock options, gym benefits, that should all be factored in or else you're selling yourself short.

in china it seems that HR and headhunters really want to know about your salary information even before you're offered an interview, perhaps this is to save everybody time if say your expectations are widely over the range.

hr for each company typically gets a benchmark against other companies for a certain position, this offers them a range, high, low, average. the question really becomes where they place you in that range, if you tell them what you're currently making, they'll probably just throw you a standard overage on top of your current and make sure it fits the range. if you don't tell them what you're currently making, they'll just try to guess where to put you in that range, if the hiring manager really wants you then you're probably in luck, this also has advantages if you're relatively certain that you're underpaid as you could see increases well over your current salary + overage.

either way, i don't believe in lying about your salary even though you know they probably have no way to check.

</comment><comment><USER39> In my current and previous job, it was never brought up, but it was revealed in the background check done by HR. They found out either way.

<comment><USER40> This is something I've dealt with as well. My usual strategy, when asked, is to ask what the employer plans on offering and if they push to see what I was making before I'll give them a ballpark figure of what I'd like to be making in the new position (usually what I was making before +10-20%). I've found that in the US in certain industries (such as finance) this question is almost always asked and if you refuse to answer, they'll just find out in the background check and will revoke the offer if they find too much of a disparity in the numbers. I've always been told it's better to be honest about it up front than to have them find out after the background check that you've exaggerated your numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Wow Ramit must be happy with that piece, it is like NYT reposted one of his blog posts verbatim! Ramit has some great tips, his general message seems to be get off your lazy ass a do something about your finances!

</comment><comment><USER42> This topic seems to be a theme today - [http://raganwald.posterous.com/on-the- subject-of-disclosing-...](http://raganwald.posterous.com/on-the-subject-of- disclosing-your-compensatio)

</comment><comment><USER43> So it's ok to reveal your salary if he insists _three_ times? :)

<comment><USER25> Sorry I only could upvote you once :-) #classic

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> IMHO, It is OK to disclose your current salary once you get selected in the interview.

<comment><USER45> I think it's in your best interests to avoid disclosing it if you can do so without losing the opportunity. However once you've been selected and the company is negotiating an offer, disclosing your compensation to the employer (and not a recruiter) isn't so bad.

The two worst cases are that you lose the offer (because you're too expensive or too cheap) or get a low offer (because they are willing to pay more but decide to base their offer on your previous compensation). If you go your separate ways, you are free to start the negotiation process all over again with another employer.

Disclosing your compensation to a recruiter is an absolute no. You are instantly and immediately disclosing your compensation to every employer, for all time.</comment></comment>


Mr. Rogers Introduces Kids to Experimental Electronic Music (1968) - <AUTHOR> http://www.openculture.com/2014/05/mr-rogers-introduces-kids-to-experimental-electronic-music.html

<comment><USER2> Bruce Haack was a genius. There are songs on _The Electric Lucifer_ [1] that would sound ahead of their time if they came out today (and that record was released almost 50 years ago). Of late he seems to have been canonized as one of those auteurs who is totally unappreciated in his time but winds up influencing everybody.

The experimental children's records mentioned in the article are absolutely worth your time, as well as the aforementioned _Lucifer_ , but anyone interested should also hear "Party Machine"[2] (co-produced by Russell Simmons) and the 32 minute epic "Icarus"—both bonus tracks on _Haackula_ [3], a 2008 collection of previously unreleased material. There's also some really good stuff on _Bruce Haack Remixes_ [4] which came out on Stones Throw in 2012.

One of my favorite rap songs in recent memory is Micah James' "Blow Job (Give Up)"[5] which samples and builds on a Haack song by the same name.

[1] [http://www.discogs.com/Bruce-Haack-The-Electric- Lucifer/mast...](http://www.discogs.com/Bruce-Haack-The-Electric- Lucifer/master/68462)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cox-6Lwx0Nw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cox-6Lwx0Nw)

[3] [http://www.discogs.com/Bruce-Haack- Haackula/release/1377215](http://www.discogs.com/Bruce-Haack- Haackula/release/1377215)

[4] [http://www.stonesthrow.com/store/album/various/bruce- haack-r...](http://www.stonesthrow.com/store/album/various/bruce-haack- remixes)

[5] [https://micahjames.bandcamp.com/track/blow-job-give- up](https://micahjames.bandcamp.com/track/blow-job-give-up)

<comment><USER3> Well that was quite cool. Theres that drum beat that you expect to kick in any moment but never does, which is kind of disappointing, but still its a cool track (just begging for a remix).

I have to say though, that video was weird. You've got Mr. Rogers who, judging by the looks, sells vacuum cleaners for a living, joined by Mr. Bruce, who would not look out of place in a Tarantino movie about a guy selling drugs in Las Vegas truck stop parking lots. Then in waltzes a scantily clad lady that proceeds to perform weird movements with kids who have apparently no idea whats going on, but decide to play along due to a lack of other options. I feel I've been missing out in my youth.

<comment><USER4> She's not scantily clad. Her leggings go almost down to her ankles. Her suit is probably brightly-colored and only looks scandalous in your brain when you fill in a different color. e.g. [http://www.dancewearsolutions.com/leotards/cl1270.aspx?posit...](http://www.dancewearsolutions.com/leotards/cl1270.aspx?position=29)

<comment><USER3> I will not let facts mess with the scandalousness of my memories. At least I've Learned Something Today about leotards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Mr. Rogers' enthusiasm and curiosity was so genuine it pulls you in. He was just as enthused about what was being taught as any of the kids watching. No wonder he connected with kids in such a unique way.

<comment><USER6> I worked as an instructor at a coding bootcamp for a year (the past year actually) and I always felt a little like I was channeling Mr Rogers. I loved him as a kid and as an adult it was very apparent to me that the reason I loved him was because he was so enthusiastic about what was going on. I taught with similar enthusiasm and got great feedback from students and my employer. I think that it held the students' attention and help them grasp new and challenging material. Enthusiasm is often lost in education because at the end of the day it is a J-O-B and it can be difficult to maintain a certain level of enthusiasm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "[Mr. Rogers' guest Haack composed] several more, all them weirder and more wonderful than maybe anything you've ever heard. (Don't believe me? Take a listen to "Soul Transportation," "EIO (New MacDonald)," or the absolutely enchanting "Saint Basil," with its Doors-y organ outro.) A psychedelic genius, Haack also made grown-up acid rock in the form of 1970's The Electric Lucifer, which is a bit like if Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice had written Jesus Christ Superstar on heavy doses of LSD and banks of analog synthesizers."

Another piece of 1960s kiddie psychedelia was H.R. Pufnstuf. The "straight guy" (Marty) of the two Krofft brothers always said that there was no LSD involved, but others there at the time disagree.

<comment><USER8> So "Syd" Krofft could have been a nickname for "acid"?

<comment><USER7> Heh. Neat idea, but I don't think so. I just think it was a thing creative people did back then.

I sold my old Klipsch speakers to Sid and visited him a couple of times at his very funky Mulholland Dr. house. There was a stool there, made of chunky wood, that he said, with a boyish smile, he had carved out "in the shape of Marilyn Monroe's rear." It was not a good fit for my own posterior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me of the "Experimental Music on Children's TV" Tumblr. [http://emoctv.tumblr.com/](http://emoctv.tumblr.com/)

Honestly, it's one of my favorite Tumblr feeds.

</comment><comment><USER10> There's a similar, and also very adorable, video of Herbie Hancock (of "Rockit" fame) on Sesame Street 15 years later: [http://www.openculture.com/2012/10/watch_herbie_hancock_rock...](http://www.openculture.com/2012/10/watch_herbie_hancock_rock_out_on_an_early_synthesizer_on_sesame_street_1983.html)

<comment><USER11> > Herbie Hancock (of "Rockit" fame)

I'm just being a grumpy old jazz fan, but it bothers me that he's not known for anything but Rockit. Even if it's just to note that he was sampled in "Cantaloop (Flip Fantasia),").

I know, it's not a culturally salient genre anymore, and I should shut up. Sorry.

<comment><USER12> Well, I'm an admirer of Herbie Hancock and I don't know what "Rockit" refers to. I hope that makes you feel better.

<comment><USER13> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHhD4PD75zY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHhD4PD75zY)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kinda think Mrs. Nelson in underdressed for the occasion....

With that said, I've always found that the greatest musical works are created under great constraints. Eddie Van Halen did amazing things with his electronics to get extra performance out of them that just didn't exist back then- everyone just sounded like eric clapton or jimmie page.

When I first began recording in the mid 90's I had to rig up two computers to do a digital 8 track recording because I couldn't afford a real one. Refining my process within those constraints I believe made a much better result than if I had something like Garage Band. It required a ton of creative engineering and that excitement that was reflected in the music.

The guy in this video is doing some really amazing stuff with such simple electronics.

</comment><comment><USER15> Huh, I have a reading a few books on the history of synths and I've never heard of this guy

_________

If anybody's interested, some of the better books are

\- Synth Gods (Rideout)

\- Electronic Music (Collins/Schedel

\- Listening thru Noise (Demers

\- Electronic/Experimental Music (Holmes

(there's a complete book listing in the back of Burkholder et al, History of Western Music)

</comment><comment><USER16> Mr. Rogers' curiosity and enthusiasm is inspirational. This video by PBS is a lovely tribute to a great human: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzXaFbxDcM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzXaFbxDcM)

</comment><comment><USER17> This video is begging for a remix.

<comment><USER18> For what such a remix would probably sound like, check out Ruckus Roboticus (particularly his "Never Play with Scratches" album). Lots of mixing on mid- century children's records (among other things).</comment></comment>


The Emperor's New Clothes, Silicon Valley Version - <AUTHOR> http://edweissman.com/the-emperors-new-clothes-silicon-valley-versi

<comment><USER2> What is the unicode symbol for bong hits?</comment>


Eradicate Business Plans: Give them the same respect that merits I.E. the Sixth - <AUTHOR> http://blog.semantics3.com/post/16752084868/eradicate-business-plans

<comment><USER2> Hahahha. Good one</comment>


How I Optimize Myself - <AUTHOR> http://danrodriguez.me/?p=56

<comment><USER2> I wonder how the author keeps such a long list in his mind while working. I'm not sure how, when his brain is actually not cooperating, he would say "brain, here's the remedy, so stick to it". Most points have this pattern "don't..", "resist..", "seize..". Whom are we kidding - as if its that easy directing our quirky mind.

I'm reminded of following Daniel Kahneman's closing notes in his books 'Thinking Fast & Slow'. So, after listing all biases and quirks (to which he has devoted his life), he writes:

What can be done about biases? How can we improve judgments and decisions, both our own and those of the institutions that we serve and that serve us? The short answer is that little can be achieved without a considerable investment of effort. As I know from experience, System 1 is not readily educable. Except for some effects that I attribute mostly to age, my intuitive thinking is just as prone to overconfidence, extreme predictions, and the planning fallacy as it was before I made a study of these issues. I have improved only in my ability to recognize situations in which errors are likely: "This number will be an anchor...," "The decision could change if the problem is reframed..." And I have made much more progress in recognizing the errors of others than my own.

</comment><comment><USER3> >"Eat Well"

I can't think of anything more distracting than trying to fit in 5 meals/day. Lost a lot of weight doing the slow carb diet, which is eating 4 times/day and the gradually shifted to the warrior diet, which is essentially one large meal/day. Takes a few days to adjust, but once I did my ability to focus has been unreal. Not everyday, but somedays I feel like I am on adderall and it is awesome. Anyways, just want to throw it out there, eating 5 times a day can be a lot for some, and I have found other hn'ers out there that practice one meal per day. I really really enjoy it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. You and another commenter on the article are making me want to try this. I've definitely noticed better energy levels through the day when I eat small quantities frequently, but I agree that it can be a lot of work. I've never tried the once a day thing. I'm skeptical, but it sounds intriguing enough to try...

<comment><USER3> Try it, but you gotta get over the OMG I am am hungry feeling which takes a few days. I remember the first time I had to drive an hour while fasting, I was scared I was going to pass out, which in retrospect is ridiculous.

You adapt to it just like anything else. If you can, read The Warrior Diet by Ori Hofmekler or just find him online. The other resource that I find amazing is The Fat Burning Man podcast by Abel James. I found Abel and the podcast while searching out stuff on Ori (he is featured for one ep), but Abel really taught me how to live the fasting lifestyle, and he goes into depth about it in the episodes. Abel fasts for most of the day as well. I dont know, it might be a trend, but like I said, I really really like it. The worst part about dieting for me was eating but not feeling like I ate enough. Turns out its easier to just not eat, and then stuff my face like a child at night..

btw, I recommend working out while fasting to get the maximum benefit. If you have more questions or whatever, I can give you my email, just let me know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Upvoting this, if only for the suggestion to "Don't think at your desk", which is a strategy I hadn't heard before.

<comment><USER5> I'm a person who just _plain can 't think_ in front of the code. Whenever I need to design something, I need to take pen and some paper, or go use a whiteboard, or go outside and take a walk, or sometimes take a shower (I use a waterproof notepad to write down ideas there).

I always struggled with this, seeing how my friends can sit for 8h/day in front of computers coding good stuff, and I need to take walks outside every time I need to think something through. It's good and reassuring to find that there are others in this situation as well.

<comment><USER6> _> I use a waterproof notepad to write down ideas there_

Seriously?! Very very cool. I should get one of those.

<comment><USER5> Seriously. It's more useful than I suspected :). I do the first sketches of my talks in the shower now; calmness and hot water boost imagination :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >"Don't think at your desk" Personally it helps me a lot , I go for a small walk alone and it helps.

<comment><USER8> I try not to go to my desk unless I have the program fully formed on paper already. If I go to the desk with a half-baked idea I will either just stare, or I will read pointless sites like this one all day.

I used to have a computer that for security reasons was only connected to revision control, build-and-test systems, and production datacenters. No outside access. Those were the days, frankly. I don't know why the company got rid of the policy that required them, but it really improved not only security but also productivity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mostly reasonable advice. An important step was missing though. Editor / IDE setup anyone? And in regards to that, I would like to point out one particular thing that might seem trivial. Color scheme. I think most people don't realize how much a proper color scheme helps reduce eyestrain, and hence general irritableness. Not to mention saving your eyes in the long run... High contrast between foreground and background color tires your eyes faster. That's why you should never use (0,0,0) or (255,255,255) as your background color.

<comment><USER10> That's defiantly an important factor, I programmed with light ( high contrast ) colour themes for 3 years. I got frequent headaches ( especially at night time ), but then I switched to a dart theme ( Monokai <3 ) and I barely get any headaches while coding any more.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. I even would say that I use a light theme in light places, dark in dark places. So I use [https://github.com/titoBouzout/Camaleon](https://github.com/titoBouzout/Camaleon) :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> has the author never tried foam ear plugs before...?

" Eliminate distractions, and I mean eliminate For a long time there's been a fad in our industry of having open workspaces. While being right next to someone and being able to just look over and ask a question is ideal for communication, it can be the opposite for concentration. Headphones with loud music don't solve the problem either. What I believe works best is quiet. Can you imagine taking a final exam in college with someone blasting music? You can't concentrate at your best when any sort of external stimuli is demanding some of your attention. It needs to be quiet, and free of any visual distraction as well. People walking by, a television, anything like this should be avoided for you to stay in the zone. If your office doesn't have a quiet distraction free area to work in, take it up with your manager. I'm personally lucky enough to get to choose when to work from home, and I often do so when I have a large piece of work cut out for me that I don't need to communicate much more on."

<comment><USER13> You wear foam ear plugs at work?

<comment><USER12> I have foam ear tips on my ear buds and wear them without music playing so co- workers are none the wiser while I get full sound isolation. It works out quiet well for me, and pulling one out to engage with anyone is effortless.

<comment><USER12> *quite

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> 5-6 meals helps burn fat is broscience.

<comment><USER15> Claiming that something is "broscience" without evidence is even worse than broscience.

<comment><USER16> No. Science requires evidence; broscience includes everything else. (Unless you think broscience requires surpassing a popularity threshold; you can see this hits that by googling it.)

Edit: The burden of proof is in the original claim, rather than calling it broscience. They even crossed off the claim in the article.</comment></comment></comment>


JFK and the art of dirty politics - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11718369 <comment><AUTHOR> Though this article is about Politics, it gives us insight into how legacy can be different from reality at times...or almost always</comment>


Unix Philosophy and the Internet of Things = Best Friends? - <AUTHOR> http://publiclab.org/notes/rjstatic/04-08-2015/unix-philosophy-the-internet-of-things-best-friends

<comment></comment>


Ethiopian Air pilots turned off 737 MAX anti-stall system. It turned on again - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/ethiopian-air-pilots-turned-off-737-max-anti-stall-system-then-it-turned-on-again/ <comment><USER2> The other articles on this clearly say the the pilots started following the procedure and disabled electrical control of the stabilizer, then later stopped following the procedure and hooked it back up to the electrical controls.

This Ars article here does not make sense with the way a 737 works. If the electrical motors are physically disconnected from any form of electricity, no amount of rebooting or software will make them start controlling the aircraft's pitch. The pilots reconnected them.</comment>


FCC: The Countdown to IPv6 is On - <AUTHOR> http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2012/05/fcc-the-countdown-to-ipv6-is-on/

<comment><USER2> Uh huh. Starting a year ago:

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=IPv...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=IPv6&sortby=create_ts+desc&start=200)

* Ask HN: Are you ready for IPv6?

* IPv6 is coming - just in time

* IPv6 is here

* World IPv6 Day: Solving the IP Address Chicken-and-Egg Challenge

* IPv6 - No longer optional

* Y2K-Like Crisis Predicted -- IPv4 Runs Out in 18 Months ( _ed: 2+ years ago_ )

* Martin Levy Discusses the Global Urgency to Deploy IPv6

* Only 2 years of IPv4 addresses left. Are you ready for IPv6? ( _ed: 3+ years ago_ )

It goes on and on like this.

The only IPv6 article you really need to read:

<http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html>

The FCC can say whatever it wants to. IANA can say whatever it wants to. RIPE can say whatever it wants to. The reality is: if we're facing the end of anything, it's of _fiat IPv4 addressing_ , in which groups formerly consisting of greybeards but gradually transitioning to technocrats decide for the market what the best utilization of IPv4 addresses is. Fiat addressing will give way to market addressing, and things will continue to chug along --- presumably indefinitely.

At some point in the next year or two, enough browsers will support SNI, and the last major consumer-level coupling of web apps to IPv4 will be gone.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would only comment that a LOT has changed since that article you reference was written 10 years ago! In the conclusion to that 2002 article, djb writes:

\---- The way to make IPv6 addresses work is to teach every Internet computer how to talk to IPv6 addresses---not just as an option that the sysadmin might configure, but as something that's automatically enabled as part of regular software/hardware upgrades. \----

Today, most all operating system _do_ speak IPv6 - and in many cases it is enabled by default. And there are plenty of IPv6-to-IPv4 gateways and other technologies so that you can, in fact, have an IPv6 network with access to IPv4 resources. We've come a LONG way. We still have a good way to go, but we're in a much better place than we were 10 years ago.

<comment><USER2> The most painful problem I see is sockaddr_in; a _lot_ of socket code is written to assume that an IP address is a scalar integer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Steps I used to setup a linode service to do IPv6 hosting:

(running apache, running passenger for ruby)

1) ifconfig to get my already assigned ipv6 address

2) Setup my DNS AAAA record to point to it (for both www and blank).

3) There is no step 3. I could see ipv6 from work and home with no extra work.

I used this extension to check for ipv6 status:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hfkjfjdafcickoihmm...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hfkjfjdafcickoihmmemeodmbomjbkfn)

<comment><USER4> IPvFoo is much better (disclaimer: I wrote it).

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ecanpcehffngcegjma...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ecanpcehffngcegjmadlcijfolapggal)

<comment><USER5> How is it better?

<comment><USER4> Here are the primary reasons why IPvFoo is better:

\- It doesn't send every domain you visit to a third-party server.

\- It shows whether you're actually using IPv6, not just whether a AAAA record exists.

\- It shows you all the page elements, not just the top level.

\- It's Free Software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's a little restartless FF addon that will tell you if the page is using IPv6: <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sixornot/>

</comment><comment><USER7> Reposting a dead post (thanks Aneth) because I have basically the same question:

I'm not familiar enough with the consequences of this change, however it seems likely such a major transition of a fundamental network layer could hardly occur as smoothly as expected. Perhaps someone knowledgeable can explain what the worst case scenario might be and whether this will be a thorn in our sides for the next 10 years. \-----

<comment><USER8> The transition has already been a thorn in our sides for the past 10+ years.

<comment><USER6> At least now we'll get some of the benefits of IPv6 while we're fighting with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> mkr-hn I'm seeing a "6to4" in the first hop when I try to tracert Facebook's IPv6 IP. It looks like Comcast has me covered until I can get an IPv6 router and modem.

I also saw a dead:beef.</comment>


Why HTML5 Won't Kill Flash or Silverlight - <AUTHOR> http://blog.iqinteractive.com/?p=338

<comment><USER2> This kind of post is of a common fallacious argument against HTML5: Stating that there are places HTML5 (by which this post means <video> mainly) lags behind flash, and implicitly implying HTML5 won't change anything.

There's no evidence given of the argument that Flash can "leapfrog" HTML5 in any way: Yes, browsers aren't always up to date, but that's just as true with Flash.

Flash certainly won't die for years. If it stays in its current state, it surely will as browsers make it increasingly obsolete.

Consider Java applets as a technology that flash couldn't entirely replace, but how many of them do you see on the web these days? In my opinion, Flash will become like it. Many users will still have it installed, but mostly to use websites where it is the point, like Netflix.

Step back from the hype, the slander, and realize that our toolbox has simply grown with HTML5, and nobody is going to be killing anything. Hopefully we can stop using our hammer on screws now that we've got a screwdriver, but that doesn't kill nails.

<comment><AUTHOR> This wasn't an argument "against" HTML5 at all. In fact, the blog author pretty clearly agrees with you that it's a welcome addition to our toolbox.

His only point is that there will still be a need for these other technologies that are sometimes incorrectly perceived as being rendered obsolete by HTML5.</comment></comment>


Porting a Chrome Extension to Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://shinglyu.github.io/web/2017/08/07/porting-chrome-extension-to-firefox.html <comment><USER2> I've run into several problems porting a Chrome extension to Firefox.

One of the biggest is that if your extension talks to a server (in my case, it was Firebase), and a web page specifies a CSP (Content Security Policy), Firefox applies the CSP to your extension's content scripts as well, whereas Chrome does not. This is a bug that they've acknowledged, but haven't fixed in _over a year_ : [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1267027](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1267027)

This bug makes it very painful to develop an FF extension, as you now need to create both a background script and a content script, talk to the server in the background script, and then have the background script relay information back to the content script. It's ridiculous.

The other problem I had, had to do with using libraries. In Chrome, you can just list the library before the script, and it _just works_. For example, you could have:

        content_scripts: ['Rx.min.js', 'your_content_script.js']

Above, with Rx.min.js, I was able to refer to Rx without any trouble inside my content script in Chrome. In Firefox, it didn't work. Rx was an undefined variable. The Rx.min.js script was something that you could include in a page with a script tag, so it should have set that variable. Oh well... I ended up having to use webpack to be able to use Rx inside the content script on Firefox.

And that isn't the end of my problems. I also had some trouble getting the communication between content page(s) and the background page working. The examples listed in the MDN documentation simply do not work, even when copied verbatim into a new web-ext project...

With the upcoming deprecation of add-ons in Firefox 57, and the really buggy state of WebExtensions in Firefox, it's going to be a pandemonium when add-ons support is dropped. WebExtension developers are going to have quite the experience porting their extensions from Chrome to Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER3> TL:DR; because Firefox adopted the Web Extensions format and even links chrome.* to the same browser.* api, so all you need to do is change a couple of things in your manifest.json and you're good to go.

What they don't say how long it takes for Firefox to approve your extension. I submitted an extension and I it took almost 3 months to get approved. I got put in a queue of about 300 at the time and the queue moved very slow. I think this is because an actual person is reviewing the extension and not some automated tool (I assume, maybe that live person is using an automated tool and then hand-checking the results)

<comment><USER4> Absolutely correct. Even if you just change one line of code it will take weeks to get approved. Totally unacceptable. Chrome approval process is measured in minutes.

Due to this and ff terrible market share there is little reason to develop for ff.

Moz has killed ff with their own incompetence.

<comment><USER5> Terrible market share? In many first world countries, 30-40% of desktop browsing market are still running Firefox.

The only markets where Firefox is below 25% are those where addons in competing browsers don't exist at all: on mobile.

<comment><USER6> Seeing [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers) chrome seems to dig other browsers.

<comment><USER5> That is including mobile. On Desktop, Firefox is still a lot larger, although Chrome has been growing, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recently ported my do not disturb for Gmail ([https://www.dndemail.com](https://www.dndemail.com)) extension from Chrome to Firefox ([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dndemail-do-not- di...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dndemail-do-not- disturb-f/plpeflfgccdjdoalphmpcahkedbabkno)).

The moderators at Mozilla initially reviewed the extension within just a couple of days. They didn't approve it and sent me some questions. I answered the questions but it took them 2 weeks to reply.

Even though it was slow, I will say, I was very impressed with Mozilla's focus on privacy and user safety (which is what most of their inquiries focused upon). They are clearly living their marketing -- it is not just lip service for them.

I will also note that I submitted a similar extension for the Opera browser on July 17 and am still waiting to hear anything from them.

</comment><comment><USER8> For my extension Saka Key ([https://github.com/lusakasa/saka- key](https://github.com/lusakasa/saka-key)), I decided to use the browser.* APIs on both Chrome and Firefox using Mozilla's web extensions polyfill.

[https://github.com/mozilla/webextension- polyfill](https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill)

The biggest challenge for me was addressing browser incompatibilities and Firefox bugs. This is a big one:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1193394](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1193394)

Another is that Firefox doesn't fire blur events when DOM elements are removed or hidden.

The Firefox approval process is slow. Mine took 3 months the first time, < 10 days the second time, and this third time it's taking over a month.

Chrome's reviewal process is really nice. It usually takes <30 minutes.

<comment><USER9> >Chrome's reviewal process is really nice. It usually takes <30 minutes.

Nice for the extension developer, but there's a reason for Mozilla's longer review process. They actually sit down human beings to look over the code and that makes all the difference in keeping AMO clean from malware.

<comment><USER10> Won't this just decentralise add-on distribution away from the Firefox add-ons store?

<comment><USER11> Most people never install any extension from third-party sites. As long as Firefox keeps the search features as they are, very few will ever venture outside addons.mozilla.org.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The post ends right before the step I was more interested to read more about: The AMO submission process.

When I ported my extension, I spent a couple of days fixing the frontend Chrome code to work on Firefox, but then spent about a full month waiting for the AMO review process and going back and forth with the reviewer through various confusions and miscommunications.</comment>


Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change <comment><USER2> This is weird. They might as well say "Fossil fuel companies are responsible for 100% of global emissions".

There is a sense in which it is true, but the statement seems to me to be neither informative nor helpful.

<comment><USER3> It's helpful in the sense that the problem is concentrated at the origin. So arguments like "it's impossible to get everyone in every country to work towards a solution" fall flat. Law makers could sit down with 100 representatives and hash out a solution with a very confined effort, you don't actually need to onboard the entire human population to get things moving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Study finds companies who take oil and gas out of the ground...

I blame western culture that encourages constant consumption of those goods...</comment>


PySignal: A Pure Python Implementation of Qt Signals - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dgovil/PySignal <comment><AUTHOR> Just wanted to share this now that it's being used a bit in production.

It's a Qt style signal/slot system using just Python with no external dependency. Hopefully useful for someone else too.

Also my first Python package available on pypi.</comment>


No One Reads Kafka At Gitmo - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/editors-picks/6076fd7f2500 <comment><USER2> The fact that Guantanamo still exists is an absolute blight on Americas reputation and the cost of that will resonate for many many years into the future even if it were disbanded today (which it really should be). Obama claims his hands are tied but to me that smacks of a lack of resolve, he has several options at his disposal (such as threatening to resign if congress won't bend on this or playing hardball in return on every other subject). It's a pity that America is so tied to the 4 year regimen for elections and that the president does not have a direct way to call for earlier elections (as far as I know).

<comment><USER3> "Obama claims his hands are tied"

Its a pity he's not Commander in Chief of the military. Then he could issue orders to soldiers in charge of a military facility. Perhaps whoever is the Commander in Chief should step forward and solve the problem.

I am well aware of the true arguments that he would be unable to defund or outright eliminate the facility, Congress would have to do that. It is WELL within his ability to, say, directly order all prisoners released, or order all troops to leave the facility and no troops to re-enter the facility.

<comment><USER4> _It is WELL within his ability to, say, directly order all prisoners released_

Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea?

If you want to release people, you need to send them someplace. Congress has banned the government from sending them to the US. You can't send them to other countries because those countries won't take them. So...where do they go?

 _or order all troops to leave the facility and no troops to re-enter the facility._

How do the prisoners eat after the US Navy leaves?

<comment><USER5> _Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea?_

Most of the men abducted to Guantanamo have been released. All of those went _somewhere_. Most just went home, although some went to more colorful locales like Palau and Albania, particularly if they had been abducted while abroad so their native land had some excuse not to accept their return. This isn't surprising, since the vast majority of these men were not "combatants" and had little connection to AQ or any other terrorist organization. The "recidivism" of released abductees has been calculated at 4%, which is such a mind- blowingly low number that it speaks more to the indiscriminate nature of the abductions rather than the rehabilitational effectiveness of Guantanamo.

Besides, what's your brilliant solution? Maintain this obscenity until the last abductee dies of old age in about 60 years? Thanks for reminding us of the typical practicality of status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom.

<comment><USER6> > Most of the men abducted to Guantanamo have been released.

Yes, they were either tried or sent back to their home countries. The ones that are left are the ones that no state is willing to host a trial for (not trying Guantanamo detainees in Alexandria became a political issue in Virginia state politics recently), or whose home countries don't want them back. What do you do with them?

<comment><USER7> I think the decent thing to do would be to give everyone not convicted of an offense US citizenship and a chunk of money by way of compensation.

Of course, that's not going to happen....

<comment><USER6> Right, but the President and Congress are not elected to do the "decent thing" but rather to implement the will of the people. When the Senate voted to block transfers from Guantanamo to the U.S. by 98-0, that suggests that they understood that the political will in the U.S. was strongly against such an action.

<comment><USER7> I apologize - I didn't know that had explicitly been blocked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In the article, Crabapple describes Guantanamo as "a factory consuming money, morals, and decades of human life." The counterpoint that governments (plural, not just the US) are making is that Guantanamo is now a factory for seething hatred that, given the opportunity, would produce new, fanatical warriors for violent jihad. No country wants to take these men on because of this perceived risk. Honestly, given the nature of indefinite detention, most humans probably would harbor a deep-seated hatred for their captors. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the other side of the argument.

<comment><USER9> And it's a pretty stupid argument as they come. First of all, where is the evidence that "Guantanamo is now a factory for seething hatred", I mean, in its prisoners? I don't think there is any evidence for that based on behavior of political prisoners around the world. Sure, they may have hatred, but they are I think quite unlikely to incite more violence.

Second, even if what you say is true, U.S. (government) created them. They are responsible to take care of them, for better or worse. And by "taking care" I mean giving them freedom and citizenship, if they are unable to return them to their home countries (in most cases unlikely, as they have families there).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I only skimmed this, so I apologize if my sense of it is woefully off mark.

I just wanted to say that my fleeting thought was that this reads like one of those odd reports from wealthy fringe tourists who have paid the North Korean regime to witness a choreographed tour of their country-sized Potemkin village (something I find contemptible, but I'll put that aside). The amount of procedure invoked by the Gitmo staff and the strictness of the touring directly reminded me of reading an incredulous and boggled report from a visitor to Pyongyang.

If this read is even remotely valid, it's simultaneously alarming that we have something that elicits a similar emotional response in me _and_ also reassuring that our worst is but a diminutive slice of an island in the Atlantic. However, the alarmist in me worries that our mainland is inching closer and closer to the unthinkable.

</comment><comment><USER11> What I find interesting about America is the LACK of a Siberia equivalent incarceration system. In other words, why not just make these people disappear? probably because America is so absolutely in love with war profiteering that every single prisoner is politically valuable. I've got $164 million reasons/year why they are still incarcerated. At this point I don't see how anyone could argue that corporate lobbying isn't at the crux of all this.

</comment><comment><USER12> Why is the Star Trek geek in me reminded of Cardassians?

</comment><comment><USER5> _Ayn Rand shares shelves with Tintin, Eli Weisel and Twilight.... Banned are books with... anti-establishment ideas._

Poor Ayn Rand.

Actually, I wonder if they have _The Fifth Head of Cerberus_? That's just as much a trip as _The Trial_ , and the last novella, "V.R.T.", would really speak to the abductees at Guantanamo. I'm not sure how much Wolfe has been translated to Pashto, however.

</comment><comment><USER13> I guess this relates to technology since it's on medium?

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe we should send some Kafka.

</comment><comment><USER15> What an article. I think the legacy of Guantanamo will haunt America forever.

</comment><comment><USER16> I am sure not many people are reading the Quran either.

<comment><USER17> It's likely they all are.

If you read the article, the Koran is one of the items pre-stocked in the empty cells alongside toiletries, waste paper bin and a prayer cap.

<comment><USER16> It was a sarcastic quip. I read the article.</comment></comment></comment>


Problem Solving with Algorithms and Data Structures - <AUTHOR> http://interactivepython.org/courselib/static/pythonds/index.html

<comment><USER2> I love the idea behind this project. I think Python is a superb language for learning programming, and the implementation of algorithms and data structures is not discussed enough in the Python world.

However, I'm not a big fan of the fact that all the collection ADTs are strict ports from Java, with far too many getSpam/setSpam methods and not enough __double_underscores__.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the comments. I'm one of the authors of the book (Miller). Although I wouldn't say that the ADTs are strict ports from Java, I would say that because we teach Java in our next class that was definitely in the back of our heads. Now that we are online, I could definitely see moving in the direction you suggest to make this interesting to a wider audience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a computer science student whose learning these in Java, thankyou so much, these are some of the best notes I've seen.

One thing that would be really useful would be time/space efficiency in big-O notation, but I'm not sure that would necessarily benefit the audience you're going for?</comment>


Talk to Eric Ries for $8.33/min (and help a nonprofit) - <AUTHOR> http://clarity.fm/#/ericries

<comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting model where everyone (apparently) can set a hotline to give advice and make some money. Some folks you can reach are: Eric Ries <http://clarity.fm/#/ericries> , Dan Martell <http://clarity.fm/#/danmartell></comment>


Demystifying the MOOC - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/education/edlife/demystifying-the-mooc.html

<comment><USER2> It's not MOOCs that depend on mystification -- it's traditional universities. Whether for-profit or non-profit, these are institutions that rake in upwards of $50k per year per student in exchange for mostly worthless seminars on art history and communications. The only way they get away with this incredible fraud is that the fading mystique of a bachelor's degree (and increasingly the mystique of master's and doctorate degrees) has become a minimum threshold requirement to enter the professional workforce in a self-reinforcing inflationary cycle.

I feel compelled to cite my own Ivy League professional degree every time a discussion on education comes up. I'm not speaking from envy or resentment. 99% of the education I received was doodling during unbelievably inefficient lectures and handing in token papers blaming the holy trinity of colonialism, race, and gender for every possible subject matter -- literary analysis, cultural study, or virtually any field where the professor wouldn't dare to mark down politically correct answers. I can only imagine how much more worthless the experiences have been of students studying less rigorous majors at less rigorous universities.

Without default-proof student loans, few students would be stupid enough to borrow such vast sums of money for such useless degrees. Nobody has ever deemed an author or a poet worthwhile on the basis of their certificates rather than their body of work. There was a time not so long ago that nurses, cops, and teachers didn't need infamously pointless certification to do their job. Even professional fields, like my own career in law, was traditionally an apprenticeship rather than a three-year slog through relatively pointless studies in exchange for (based on a ten-year repayment plan) more than a half- million dollars in debt.

But at least I received a professional degree. Undergraduate degrees outside of STEM fields (which may reasonably require certification) are increasingly justified by the mystique of "teaching you how to think" or, in William Deresiewicz's language, building a self and developing a soul.

To quote Steven Pinker's excellent takedown of Deresiewicz: "Perhaps I am emblematic of everything that is wrong with elite American education, but I have no idea how to get my students to build a self or become a soul. It isn't taught in graduate school, and in the hundreds of faculty appointments and promotions I have participated in, we've never evaluated a candidate on how well he or she could accomplish it. I submit that if "building a self" is the goal of a university education, you're going to be reading anguished articles about how the universities are failing at it for a long, long time." 1

\- - - - - - - - - -

Let's take down this article point by point.

(1) "There are several reasons for the disillusionment. First, the average student in a MOOC is not a Turkish villager with no other access to higher education but a young white American man with a bachelor's degree and a full- time job."

It takes remarkable inculcation of the "whitey is bad" mindset to think that intelligent, driven people studying in their free time is bad if they're educated white men. Would the author condemn MOOCs if they were instead dominated by impoverished African women?

Nor does this argument in any way mean that since white people are studying, nobody else may study. Young white men are overwhelmingly the early adopters of ANY revolutionary technology, including the Internet and cell phones. Every time access to knowledge was pioneered by young white men, the resulting benefits were quickly taken up by the rest of the world as soon as infrastructure was established.

(2) "A second problem is that when MOOCs replace traditional courses, an extremely high number of students fail."

Yes... that's what happens when you study a subject in your free time, which vanishingly few of us have. Most of my colleagues can barely sleep, much less have dinner with their girlfriends or sustain marriages with their increasingly dissatisfied wives.

And we're the lucky ones! Poor and middle-class Americans work absolutely ridiculous hours at multiple jobs for virtually no pay and certainly no benefits or savings. Worse, the bottom 85% of the country have increasingly abandoned marriage and important social support structures in favor of having children without partners or with a rotating cast of partners... with all the consequent dysfunction that you might imagine.

I myself have signed up for a number of MOOC courses in computer science that I've barely started, for lack of time and focus. I'm hoping to transition soon to a job that allows me regular hours and secure employment so I can spend my free time learning for its own sake... but until then, my MOOC courses will remain incomplete (and failed) and my favorite books will remain unread.

If this point argues anything, it's that leisure time is valuable. I don't see why a teenager would be better off paying $50k+/year to attend lesser quality artisanal lectures from lesser professors than they would be simply spending those years living in a city and studying Harvard's MOOCs at Starbucks.

(3) "What's more, for many instructors, the courses are on-the-job training in online education. Two-thirds of MOOC professors surveyed by The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2013 said they had never taught a fully online course before their first open online class."

Jesus christ. Really.

In the first place, MOOCs have barely entered their first couple years of existence. No kidding you don't have many people experienced in broadcasting lectures online. Why would this negatively impact the quality of these experienced professors' lectures?

In the second place, the author says the solution is to introduce certification in teaching MOOCs. Can't cut out that institutional middleman, can we?

In the third place, inexperienced adjunct professors absolutely DOMINATE college teaching. The tenured professor who earns six figures is vanishing quickly in favor of bloated administration and harried graduate students who waste their youth on useless doctorates and burn out on underpaid teaching positions. If Selingo wants experienced senior professors teaching courses, I can't imagine a better source than any given MOOC.

(4) "Coursera and edX, the two main MOOC providers, are essentially acting as gatekeepers for American higher education online, replicating in their virtual world the pecking order in the physical world as determined by U.S. News & World Report rankings."

INCREDIBLE. In an effort to decry free access to the best educations, Selingo complains that MOOCs generally pursue the best professors from the best universities, as defined by the best students. Because in the absence of MOOCs, anyone could attend Harvard courses for free from anywhere in the world at their own schedule. Calling MOOCs "gatekeepers" rather than educational institutions requires the highest level of intellectual dishonesty.

Selingo also implies that these talentless schmucks from Harvard are crowding out more talented professors from no-name schools. Not only is there literally nothing keeping a competing no-name from publishing their own course, there's nothing keeping them from publishing their own PLATFORM to rival Coursera or edX. It's not as though Udacity has a long brand history or a monopoly on competent teaching.

Nor are existing platforms hostile to non-Ivy courses in the first place. I'm currently working my way through some UToronto courses in computer science, an opportunity I would never have had otherwise. Of course, I could have attended a vastly inferior course at a local college at amazing expense in terms of time and money... but at least I would have employed inferior institutions and kept the student loan money rolling in.

\- - - - - - - - - -

To Selingo's credit, he acknowledges that MOOCs allow students to study their passions at their own pace. To introduce that obvious fact after this series of libelous attacks on MOOCs doesn't feel particularly redemptive, but... let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

I actually purchased Selingo's book when it was published, in aspirational hopes of working through my enormous backlog of unread books in the near future. Of course, by Selingo's calculations, my failure to complete his book signals the pointlessness of book publication. I should instead pay enormous sums to have vastly inferior writers cobble together their own inadequate interpretations on the subject of MOOCs three times a week, in a schedule that prevents me from maintaining worthwhile employment and forces me to take out predatory student loans that fund such middlemen institutions.

We should expect these attacks to continue as the value of worthless degrees is called into question. There are going to be a LOT of unemployed doctorates and administration in the coming decade, most of whom have no practical skills except professional outrage. Allow me to state the obvious: MOOCs are an unqualified blessing on the world, and impart the best parts of an education without the cost of kids' youths and hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are the future of education. And that is a wonderful, wonderful gift to every generation to come.

1\. [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy- league...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119321/harvard-ivy-league- should-judge-students-standardized-tests)

<comment><USER3> Excellent take down. I'd also like to add that Mr. Selingo's paragraph here is so disingenuous that it can not be considered anything but a blatant lie:

> A second problem is that when MOOCs replace traditional courses, an > extremely high number of students fail. A well-publicized experiment backed > by Gov. Jerry Brown of California at San Jose State University flopped. In > one of the MOOCs, just 25 percent of students passed; in another, only 50 > percent passed, much lower rates than for the on-campus equivalents.

The experiment in question involved a remedial algebra class offered to students at SJSU who had not only failed "elementary math placement tests", but who had previously paid for and taken a on campus "SJSU Plus math" course and failed it. These were not normal students, these were from among the 50% of entering high school graduate students who were incapable of meeting basic requirements. They paid $150 to take the remedial class, much less than normal tuition at SJSU. When you fail the remedial class at SJSU, you are kicked out of the university and made to go back to community college and reapply to SJSU later. These students were given a chance at a second chance - to try their hand at an online class.

The results[1] were that the SJSU on campus college algebra class has a 64.7% pass rate. The Summer 2013 pilot of the on line version had a 72.6% pass rate. That is a higher rate. For the remedial math class called Entry Level Math, the on campus pass rate has been 45.5%. For the on line summer 2013 pilot the pass rate was 29.8%. That is lower. However, in this case these students had already failed the on-campus one and were selected from that population. They were not the general population of students. The class was not replacing an on campus class since these students did not have the option of taking remedial class a second time, their only option was to leave the university and go to community college.

When offering the same class to the general population of students, and not students that have failed remedial classes already, results are always better. The numbers for college algebra are above and represent a tremendous tuition savings. For SJSU's Circuits and Electronics class, 40% of on campus students got C or lower. For the online version of the same class, offered for SJSU credit through the EdX platform, only 9% got a C or lower. [2]

In reporting these results, Mr. Selingo states that "when MOOCs replace traditional courses, an extremely high number of students fail". This claim is false.

1\. [http://blogs.sjsu.edu/today/2013/sjsu-plus- fall-2013-update-...](http://blogs.sjsu.edu/today/2013/sjsu-plus- fall-2013-update-2/)

2\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/technology/california- to-g...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/technology/california-to-give-web- courses-a-big-trial.html)

<comment><USER4> Isn't there a statistical issue akin to mortality being swung by massive infant mortality.

The barrier to entry to MOOCs is very low (submit your email address, for example), whilst the barrier to entry to traditional courses is high (pay large amounts of money and often move home too).

Many people will, I imagine, sign up for MOOCs but fail early, within the first couple of weeks. There's a similar thing in multi-year university courses I think, some will fail their first year, those that make it through that will have a far higher rate of success.

The lower risk/barrier to entry is part of the reason to offer MOOCs IMO, you're enabling many people to try tertiary education for whom the risk-reward analysis is simply too adverse otherwise.

Surely provided MOOCs enable more people to acquire a given educational level they are working, whether that is cost effective or not I guess is the question to ask then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author seems to have completely overlooked that a "young white American man with a bachelor's degree and a full-time job" can generally afford more time for continued education than those who may benefit most from MOOCs. Also, those without personal experience may not fully grasp how mentally exhausting poverty with no fallback options can be. MOOCs alone probably won't maximize the positive effects of high quality, affordable, and easily accessible education. However, they are an extremely important first step so that other disruptions can help those who need MOOCs take advantage of them.

Advancements in AI and automation are going to replace a lot more jobs, and MOOCs are a great way to quickly/affordably retrain for a new profession. The end goal of my current project is to reach a point where we can actually pay people a livable wage to educate themselves with MOOCs as they pursue their desired professions. MOOCs have already been incredibly helpful for me personally, and I believe that they'll be considered one of the most important innovations in the future.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have a link to share (Why the "Low MOOC Completion Rate" Statistic is a Bogus Argument) : [http://augmentedtrader.com/2013/07/24/why-the-low-mooc- compl...](http://augmentedtrader.com/2013/07/24/why-the-low-mooc-completion- rate-statistic-is-a-bogus-argument/)

This blog is written by one of the Coursera Course(Computational Investing) instructor. I will quote him "Much of the criticism of MOOCs centers on supposedly low completion rates. And these rates do seem low when compared to completion rates of regular university courses. But the comparison isn't apples to apples. Let's dive in by considering what does it mean to start a course. "

</comment><comment><USER7> MOOCs are merely a stepping stone along a much broader movement. They were based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how degree-granting institutions work. For most people, knowledge gained during the pursuit of a college degree is secondary to the projected $17,500 increase in salary. [1] MOOCs have no such carrot motivating people to complete them.

Online courses are just that: courses + the internet. Anyone can load up on MIT OCW, Coursera, and Udacity lectures that have a value of ~$0 on a resume. What does a 10x improvement upon education look like? What happens when we stop watching talking heads in a video and start taking part in individualized tracks that can prove our knowledge of a subject to a certain degree of certainty, as it evolves over time, for any subject. The issue has never been learning, it's been proving that you know what you've learned.

As it stands now, college degrees serve as a signal for what someone knows. No matter how outdated that notion is.

[1]: [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study- income-...](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/11/study-income-gap- between-young-college-and-high-school-grads-widens)

<comment><USER8> No, you prove what you know at a technical interview. I think a college degree is not the best indicator of knowledge. There are really useless people with Masters degrees in CS.

<comment><USER7> You and I may believe that a college degree is not the best indicator of knowledge, but industry at large (both inside and outside of technology) does not. Furthermore, proving a lifetime of learning and knowledge in the span of at most 8 hours is dubious at best and impossible at worst.

<comment><USER9> College dropouts (Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Zuckerberg, etc) can make it to the top in the tech world. OTOH, top tech companies like Google and Facebook routinely screen out candidates with Bachelors, Masters, and PhD degrees from top schools because they don't pass the technical interviews. This process itself is surely imperfect, but the ability to solve hard problems on the spot is generally more valued than a vegetable with a (once) sacred piece of paper.

<comment><USER10> All 4 of the dropouts you mentioned started their own companies.

I think the more mature the company (the more of a typical corporation it is), the less likely they are to consider someone w/o a college degree.

<comment><USER11> Interestingly, Google has seemed to go in the opposite direction. From being staunchly vocal about hiring only graduates from top universities when they were still comparatively small, to coming out and saying that educational histories not correlating in any meaningful way with employee performance as they've grown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the author's criticisms are mostly invalid (see Chevalier's comment for a great takedown). With MOOCs, I worry more about these things instead: 1) MOOCs lack the social/deadline pressure to get people to finish their work, and 2) people learn by doing things actively, which is much harder to encourage over the internet.

For 1, as a person with ADHD I struggle to get work done. The deadlines and social pressure to meet them are sometimes the only thing forcing me to actually do work. If people formed local communities to push each other to finish their MOOCs, that would help, but this isn't built-in to MOOCs directly like it's built-in to traditional universities.

For 2, I think people only learn when actively doing something. Passively listening to a lecture does nothing; the lecture only becomes knowledge when you think about it or use it in some way. Active learning exercises are harder to build in to MOOCs because one of the best ways of evaluating learning - having someone "qualified" look at your work and provide feedback - isn't scalable. Multiple-choice questions are too easily gamed and rarely encourage deep thinking. Things like discussions, or iterative feedback on problem- solving, or essay critiques are much more useful, but again, not easily scalable.

It might be that forums where other students critique your work or help you through difficult assignments could be a good substitute. But maybe not. I'm a teaching assistant for a computer science department, and it's difficult to encourage a student in just a right way to help them get the answer for themself. It's tempting to just give out the answer, which isn't helpful for the student but is much easier for me. The collective wisdom of a forum might not be a good substitute for the subtle patience of a professor.

However, neither of these concerns mean we shouldn't pursue MOOCs. I want MOOCs to one day be a complete substitute for a university education. But to do that, concerns like these will need to be addressed.

</comment><comment><USER8> Of course MOOC students "fail" the courses, the whole point of it is to do self study, not to adhere to deadlines. Why would I follow an artificial deadline for my own studies?

<comment><USER13> I've taken a few courses, but "failed" all of them. I don't understand why the courses are designed from the constraints of college life and not the possibilities of Internet?

<comment><USER14> The "constraints of college" are a key part of what makes education work. Deadlines are an anti-procrastination device.

This is rarely acknowledged.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, deadlines definitely help. Additionally, the synchronization helps in terms of discussing the material.

<comment><USER8> I think course materials should be there forever, sometimes being improved in some places, and discussion/reviews should be there forever as well.

So like a forum about a specific topic with learning materials available at all times. No deadlines, just people collaborating to improve each other's knowledge.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seeking Connections in the Time of Coronavirus, Lonely Texans Turn to Craigslist - <AUTHOR> https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/texas-craigslist-posters-coronavirus/ <comment><USER2> 'Still, Craigslist's "Activity Partners" pages—a replacement for the "Personals" section discontinued two years ago...'

Actually, Activity Partners / Missed Connections / etc. have existed as long as the website has.</comment>