How I got my dream job in the tech industry without a CS degree - <AUTHOR> https://billmei.net/blog/silicon-valley-job-search <comment><USER4> The author's comment on access to a mediocre/unknown university instructor for a high fee vs free access to a very good set of lectures (Khan) is one of the doubts that led me to quit my job as a college instructor. I had kind of the existential "what are we doing here?" question -- why are students coming here and paying us money when better instruction is available for free online? Combined with a couple of education futurists predicting the imminent demise of in-person college (to be replaced by canned lectures from the best speakers and an army of automated or mechanical-turk graders), I decided to be first out rather than forced out and quit. That was five years ago and the landscape hasn't changed much.

The school I taught at, a community college issued associate's degrees in computer programming, is still going strong largely as it was back then. I still don't have an answer to my question, though: why are students paying for that?

<comment><USER5> There's a big difference between having an instructor and learning things from a book or video lectures. An instructor can correct your mistakes and give you feedback. A book or a video can't do that.

Some people presumably don't have a right kind of discipline to study on their own. This is why remote study programs can be a lot more difficult to complete vs. on-site programs.

EDIT: There's a known effect, discussed in the Coursera "Learning How to Learn" course, where you read through the material/watch a video and _think_ that you've actually mastered or learnt it while in fact you have not. If you're aware of this and test your knowledge you can fix that but it's another reason why a structured program with an instructor can have an advantage...

<comment><USER6> The Open University in the UK has a dropout rate of 87% [1] I'd imagine that's even higher for online courses.

I can only speak for myself but I would not have been self-disciplined enough to complete the courses that I did during my undergraduate CS degree.

The added bonus was the degree allowed me to emigrate fairly easily.

[1] - [https://www.timeshighereducation.com/letters/the-open- univer...](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/letters/the-open-university- ou-needs-to-make-it-personal#survey-answer)

<comment><USER7> As an OU graduate (late 90s), my first thought was that a lot of people just try the OU, others just like to take some classes without sticking to a program and with no intention of getting a degree...

> the cost for an equivalent course for a resident of England is £2,786

The OU used to be about giving a chance to education to everybody. This is sad...

<comment> jon-wood To be fair OU courses are eligible for student loans in the same way going to university is, but the price tag certainly put me off when I was looking into doing some courses recently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Damn, that guy busted his butt. I got a creative writing degree from a decent but relatively unheard of Texas state school, spent a month studying Javascript, got into a bootcamp, worked for the bootcamp as TA for 3 months, then got a ~120k/yr job in the bay area within a month of leaving the bootcamp. I had 3 projects on my resume and absolutely _nothing_ technical to show for the time period prior to the bootcamp, other than a single Intro to CS MOOC.

I always marveled at the people like this that seemed to do _so much more_ concrete things than me. I leveraged my strength - talking, knowledgeably - and that worked well, but many of my peers got in on their technical ability and work ethic alone.

I haven't written as in-depth a blog post as this guy but I have a couple articles for those interested:

1\. Linkedin tips for bootcamp grads [http://blog.calebjay.com/2016/11/14/how- to-use-linkedin-as-a...](http://blog.calebjay.com/2016/11/14/how-to-use- linkedin-as-a-coding-bootcamp-grad/)

2\. Jobsearch tips for bootcamp grads [http://blog.calebjay.com/2016/10/18/how-this-coding- bootcamp...](http://blog.calebjay.com/2016/10/18/how-this-coding-bootcamp- grad-found-a-job/)

This makes me think maybe I should put together a more holistic article on the entire process.

EDIT: I'll be watching this for a while if anybody has questions on the bootcamp experience, resulting jobsearch, etc.

<comment><USER9> May I politely say "fuck you" for getting a 120k job after completing a bootcamp. Starting salary of 120k/yr for someone with a 3-month vocational program and an unrelated undergrad degree? That is literally insane.

<comment><USER8> Hah, you may, it does seem pretty crazy, doesn't it?

I would say that the reason it seems crazy isn't _rational_ , however. If I was forced to break down the reasons that this worked, I would condense it to three:

1\. I focused entirely upon a single skill that is highly desired right now (Javascript / Web Development in JS/HTML/CSS/JS Frameworks). I didn't "waste" any time learning other programming languages, systems designs, or even anything beyond the most basic of algorithms and algorithm design. These things are not necessary to build webapps in Angular/Backbone/React/Vanilla. My bootcamp (hack reactor) assisted with a very focused curriculum.

2\. I was able to condense this learning to a short period of time by being utterly focused on it and nothing else, all day, every day. I was learning the one skill I needed to be employable from 8a-9p Mon-Sat for 3 months, and then 8a-5p Mon-Fri for another 3 months (when I was a TA).

3\. I am a highly sales-trained ex-recruiter, and know through experience and training _exactly_ what I need to do to get a job, fast. This includes being an annoying little bastard ;) but also includes streamlining my processes (never spending more than 10 minutes on a single application, etc) and being _very_ good at turning a "no" into a "oh, ok, let's talk more."

<comment><USER10> > being very good at turning a "no" into a "oh, ok, let's talk more."

Honestly wish there was a 3 month bootcamp for this.

<comment><USER8> Be a recruiter for a bit :P or any sales job, really.

Best advice I can give is treat every "no" like a probe from the other side to learn more. They're not saying no, they're saying "I don't know enough about this to want it." Obviously use common sense to avoid harassing someone, and don't waste your time where no opportunity exists (Mark Cuban reacted to the infamous "sell me your pen question" with "Do you need a pen? No? Ok, have a nice day.")

So every "no" has a response -

1\. "No, you don't have enough experience."

Response: "I understand that this role requires the right experience. I applied to the job because I'm confident I have the experience you need. What about my background makes you feel otherwise? Do you have a coding challenge I can complete to demonstrate my ability?"

2\. "No, we've had issues with bootcamp grads in the past. "

Response: "Hm, I can understand why having an experience like that would make you wary about bootcamp graduates. Was there something specific about why that grad didn't deliver? (choose response based on further information gathered, then: ) Hm, that does sound challenging. I think that my x y or z demonstrates why that issue wouldn't arise with me / I would love to demonstrate via a code challenge why I wouldn't x y z / If you go to myproject.calebjay.com you can see that I have quite a bit of hands-on experience with x y or z, so I'm confident that a b c wouldn't be an issue.

I'm remembering now an old sales training "no" breakdown:

1\. Acknowledge the concern. Make the client feel that their concerns are valid, do not challenge or attack them, but at the same time avoid perfectly validating their belief that this is a harbringer that all similar solutions warrant "nos." So: "Yea, it is quite frustrating when recruiters send candidates that aren't even close to a good fit. You should see some of the resumes we people send to us when we open a job!" === good. "Oh man recruiters are so annoying, yea I would definitely never use them" === bad (when you're a recruiter trying to sell your services. Also, "psh, recruiters never act that way, you must have done something to annoy them" === bad.

2\. Information gather. Always good all the time anyway. Usually the first "no" gives very little information and you could make some bad assumptions. "We've had bad experience with recruiters in the past" tells you literally nothing. The answer they give you can lead you straight into one of the fifty sells your company has drilled into your head. "What happened with the previous agencies?" "Well, they were sending bad resumes." \--> "Oh, we get some hilariously off resumes. We like to think of ourselves as a filter for our clients, so we get maybe fifty resumes for a posting which allows us to hand-pick the best 3 for our clients." "Well, they would have three or four recruiters constantly calling us." "That is frustrating, we decided two years ago to only allow a single recruiter point of contact for our company because of that exact feedback from our clients." Etc.

3\. Close. Of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I studied finance and logistics despite the fact that I had been programming since grade 6. I have no idea why.

So when I started working in finance the ball dropped that I actually wanted to be a programmer.

Well trying to become a software developer with no relevant qualifications and only a grade 6 award for programming in Pascal is difficult, especially when you are located in South Africa.

Luckily I worked for a fortune 500 company that would do anything to reduce employee turnover except pay a decent wage. So I leveraged off that and got them to move me horizontally into more and more technical roles automating what I could and just getting involved in as many technical things as possible.

<comment><USER12> I'm also in SA, and although I can't comment from a personal level (have degree), I don't think we have it as bad as some other countries in terms of degree snobbery. Sure, it will definitely lock you out of many large corporations at an HR level. But many more are just hungry for developer talent, and wouldn't think twice about hiring those without a degree. If it was up to me, I'd hire anyone who a) shows a lot of interest in programming, and b) can actually back that up in some fashion. Sadly it's often not up to us techies, so it's definitely a disadvantage if you don't have one.

(Come to think of it, I've worked with a dev at one of the big 4 banks who didn't even have a matric / grade 12. There may have been some protectionism in the initial hiring, but nobody batted an eyelid after that since he was a very good developer.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > " I eventually found what I was looking for: by changing a few lines of CSS, > I could hack the layout of the page to push all the ads off the screen"

I remember doing stuff like this. I had a Geocities account back in the day as well as one on a number of other providers like Angelfire, etc.

One of the simplest hacks was to just leave an opening  tag at the bottom of your markup. Since the ad code and scripts were appended to the bottom of the page markup, they would never execute or show up. One of the free hosting providers started fighting back by putting a bunch of  tags in a row right before their ad code started. Savvy developers of course responded by placing even more opening  tags. I forget which provider it was, but those were some good times to be a rebellious teenage coder. :)

</comment><comment><USER14> A bit odd to put "dream job" in the title and start the article with a picture of him in the Googleplex...

But in the end find out he doesn't work at Google.

In any case, I meet people on the regular working at top tech companies without a STEM degree, some without any degree at all. The stories are all pretty similar:

1) Teach themselves programming

2) Make lots of actual software

<comment><USER15> My path, with an allegedly irrelevant degree (History and Philosophy of Science) was

1) tinker with computers as a kid

2) go to university and study something I wanted to learn about, randomly learning C in passing (from a friend and a stolen copy of turbo c) because I was interested

3) get a job at a small local ISV, qualified by having a degree in anything and knowing how to write simple code

4) spend 4 years as an apprentice (informally) taking every opportunity to learn

5) get a job at a startup

6) join Microsoft through acquisition

7) ...

Up until step 6, my resume probably didn't look that interesting, but once you have one of the household name software companies on your resume the rest becomes irrelevant

<comment><USER14> My early steps were pretty similar as well, tho I kind of "hacked" my way into the industry by getting an internship

1) Tinker with computers as a kid

2) Go to University to study something I wanted to learn (Biochemistry) - <USER2> CS101 to learn some programming

3) Go to grad school for something else unrelated (economics)

4) Work in something unrelated

5) Learn programming in spare time.

6) Quit job. Learn programming hardcore. Enroll in CS classes at a University to become eligible for internships.

7) Land an internship at Google.

After that, it was smooth sailing.

<comment><USER10> Just curious, how close are you and pacaro to 40? Congratulations on your success but you guys might find the smooth sailing become much less smooth the older you get.

<comment><USER15> I'm in my mid 40s, currently a Principal Engineer at Amazon. My experience is probably not typical for all sorts of reasons

<comment><USER10> Fair--everyone's situation is different and I was making a generalization. Congrats on your early good luck and sustained success!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article is so much more inspiring than the title suggests. The fact that this guy got a job at FutureAdvisor after graduating with a business degree... isn't really all that interesting. But the thought process and out-of-the-box thinking he showed at every step, was awe inducing. Getting a business degree instead of just sticking with something he had already mastered, was both smart and brave at the same time. I may not agree with every decision he made, but the fact that he abandoned well-trodden paths, and instead created his own roadmap, is what impressed me the most.

Bill, if you're reading this and would like to collaborate together on any side projects at some point, just shoot me an email (it's on my profile).

P.S. If anyone wants to read another story about non-CS-majors transitioning into the SW industry, here's mine: [http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/caucus/tech_blog/107](http://www.thecaucus.net/#/content/caucus/tech_blog/107)

<comment><USER17> If you think about it, him working at FutureAdvisor and getting a business degree is, if nothing else, consistent with what he finds interesting and rewarding.

I just wish I could be 10% as productive as he is in this story. It's really incredible, and there doesn't seem to be a "magic sauce" to it, other than the obvious dogged persistence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Don't get me wrong, I'm glad OP is happy with where he is right now, but his story's ending is underwhelming.

> Instead of emailing as many black holes as possible, I would spend a week > deeply researching a company and the business problems it faced, then put > together a working prototype that I would cold-email to the CEO as a product > improvement. ... My strategy was working!

Really? Interesting, let's see the outcome.

> I made my cold-emails insanely customized: for the language-learning company > Duolingo I sent them a video of me speaking four languages.

Seems like it's not really working, Bill.

> Getting attention is only the first step. The next step is to interview.

.... right. So OP wasted a lot of time on something that yielded the same result as spam (applying to every job).

> I met Aline in San Francisco and she remains to this day the best recruiter > I've ever worked with.

Ok, so it seems those weeks spent deeply researching companies were a huge waste. Ouch. But at least the recruiter helped you get a job, right?

> Not only did she personally introduce me to companies, she helped me > recognize that the recruiting practices of top Silicon Valley companies are > largely based on superstition. This meant that if I wanted to interview > well, I had to put in an unreasonable amount of practice.

Oh, so still no job. Tell me you found a way to avoid the bullshit interview preparation and used your time to improve the skills you'd actually be using in your job.

> I bought all the popular technical interviewing guidebooks and read them > cover-to-cover.

Huh, dived head first into that one... might've just gone and gotten yourself a CS degree then.

> At the same time, I continued to scour Hacker News and AngelList for > companies with open positions, and continued to cold-email CEOs.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

> I also signed up for Hired which ended up having the best response > rate—their platform is where I eventually found my current job.

... so why'd you put all that effort into making personalized emails for companies? Ugh.

> In the end, after hundreds of awkward sales calls, hundreds of rejections, > and thousands of hours coding, I was able to choose a company that best > aligned with my personal values. I'm now working at FutureAdvisor.

Ok... never heard of them, but I do like the rose-tinted glasses. Not sure what Bill's secret for being positive is, but it seems to be working for him.

<comment><USER19> These were my exact thoughts almost word for word...also the thoughts below make zero sense back to back.

"At the same time, my old clients started referring me to other clients and everything snowballed into a big, unstoppable avalanche of steady consulting work. I took this as a clear sign that I found my calling in life.

Now that I was confident with the flow of consulting work, I began looking for a full-time job."

What?! Why are you going to look for a job after finding your calling with an overflow of consulting business?

<comment><USER20> I'd guess he was charging peanuts and rather than raising his rates he figured a job paid more.

Then again, I think every programmer needs to work with people better than them for a few years.

Most of the worst code I've seen is from programmers who have always been one- man bands, or have been a one-man band for a very long time. It's often a case of not knowing what you don't know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't think most of us want to be "Computer Scientists" as the colleges define it.

I think most of us want some kind of Software Engineering degree which is not what a Computer Science degree is. Most colleges want to teach "Computer Science" as they see it which is basically just "Math with Data Structures and other BS thrown in to make people hirable".

I think at this point what needs to happen is colleges need to stop branding "Computer Science" as something that will get you a job and stick to what they want to do, the hard algorithms and theory stuff and someone else needs to offer a "Software Engineering" course that teaches all the stuff that colleges threw in to make people hireable. If that happened we'd all be more happy.

The only way to make this happen is to stop posting job profiles asking for "Computer Science" unless you _acctually need_ a Computer Scientist (theory- side). You should instead say "Software Engineer or similar" in the posting. Colleges will see this, parents will see this, students will see this and after that all happens we'll all be able to make better choices. Students will find colleges wanting to teach what they are interested, the stuanch theory CS professors will be able to teach at colleges, and employers will actually find programmers who can program after they've graduated from college. Maybe we'd be able to kill off a few major zero days, save a chunk of change in the global economy, or make something cool by making this small change.

I also don't think Software Engineering is as much of a "science" as it is a "trade". Programmers program, painters paint, carpenters carpet.... I mean build. We all have a skilled knowladge and tallent and know how to use that to shape the world around us. Most of the information that must be taught is experiance based and can be given in a trade-school enviroment. I think that's also another way forward.

<comment><USER22> There are some 'buillshit' classes in C.S. which are highly theoretical which and has nearly zero real world applications for an average programmer but data structures is not one of them. The schools don't teach data structure just so a graduate can answer related interview questions.

      I also don't think Software Engineering is as much of a "science" as it is a "trade" ... Most of the information that must be taught is experiance based and can be given in a trade-school enviroment

I disagree. Software Engineering is not just about experience. It is not something that a master can pass to his students. It is also about constantly improving yourself and learning new things.

<comment><USER21> > The schools don't teach data structure just so a graduate can answer related > interview questions.

At my university, "Data Strctures" is one course where you write no code, another corse that is just about discrete math, and then at your senior year you actually do a Data Structures class.

I have no problem with Data Structures and I of course think they are important. I have a problem with what colleges think Data Structures are, or how they should be taught.

<comment><USER23> Why would writing code matter? Data structure aren't "code", they are a way of organizing data. Sure, in our jobs we use them practically, but the purpose of college is to explain them and (the really important part) _when_ to use them.

There is a core difference between implementation and theory.

<comment><USER21> What is implementation if not a perfect description of the theory?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I enjoyed the article and the determined attitude of the author, but he failed to answer some important questions. What makes this employer worth all the work? And the job? How long is the long time he expects to work there? And what leads him to anticipate that about himself and his employer? Neither are likely to be the same in a few years.

I stayed with IBM for 4 years out of university. In hindsight, I wish I left after two years as it was in those first years I learned the most about how the large operate. The next two years was me getting too comfortable. I could have kept my energy and learning higher by seeking new professional experiences that are not available within an org.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is the _main_ reason I love being in IT - I myself have a MSc in Computer Science but whenever I come across folks in IT who don't have CS or IT-related degree (most of whom are as-smart-as or smarter then me), I look at them as motivating and inspirational individuals.

This is the beauty of IT and the core of our industry's success - <USER3> experience and thought processes of all the individuals from diverse academic and work experiences combine to make IT a truly multi-dimensional job field.

</comment><comment><USER26> I believe that the general public does not understand the term computer science. I also don't believe that any CS grad is better off in the job market as a result of the courses taken, but rather is only highly sought after as a job candidate because of the degree's title. I often wonder if HR/hiring- managers will eventual wake up to the fact that a large part of the work that is typically required for such jobs can be accomplished by any dedicated individual willing to put in the time building a portfolio (aka ~10,000 hours) and then learn on the job.

</comment><comment><USER27> I bet there's quite a bit of us here, who could tell a story on "How _I_ got my career in the tech industry without any degree at all".

Same for me. And although I could tell a longer story, the TLDR is "love what you do and the rest will come naturally".

</comment><comment><USER28> Why did he have to go through hundreds of applications and interviews? I feel like someone should have hired him _much_ sooner. Just on the basis of his words alone.

I too managed to get into programming without a degree but for me the path was as simple as convincing an employer (while I was a cold-calling salesman) I could write a better product than the one they were using.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't think getting a programming job without possessing a degree is that rare of a story anymore. You can teach yourself anything online. I am actually self-taught developer and when I started, I was working primarily with people who had degrees, occasionally coming across another self-taught developer. I started about 12 years ago, but now I am increasingly encountering self-taught programmers who can run rings around developers with degrees.

</comment><comment><USER30> Back in 2010 I quit my banking job and took all of the undergrad computer science courses at a state college. This was still at the bottom of the recession, before all these coding bootcamps got started. I learned a ton and taught myself python/django on the side. Then I built a saas product and have been doing that full time ever since. I'm not a great programmer, but I'm good enough to work with developers I now hire. Back when I did this everyone thought I was crazy and most finance people still thought programming was lame. Now that seems to have totally switched and everyone wants to be a programmer. It's a bit surreal looking back, but if I could do it again I'd probably consider one of the programming bootcamps. Of course now you're probably better off doing the uncool thing, like becoming a banker.

</comment><comment><USER31> My main takeaway: the author was tremendously motivated and with perseverance and skill he succeeded. That perseverance part is something I have to remind myself of when I face setbacks.

Props to the author and his journey.

</comment><comment><USER32> > I also signed up for Hired which ended up having the best response > rate—their platform is where I eventually found my current job.

Would the author of the article mind sharing their Hired.com preferences? I've been trying Hired.com for 5 months and still receive the same response:

"You have great experience! Unfortunately, at this time we don't have enough opportunities that match your role and location preferences. We've added your name to our waitlist and will be in touch as soon as we're confident that we can provide you with quality opportunities!"

</comment><comment><USER33> This article is full of assumptions.

First of all you don't need a college education to work in software development. I have a Bachelor's, but not in CS and I have known some great developers who have no college at all. I am completely self-taught. You have endless time to learn this stuff on military deployments. Developers, who don't suck, are in crazy demand... particularly if you have web skills and don't suck. I rarely see CS graduates writing original JavaScript applications without large frameworks, for example.

Secondly, it appears his dream job is in the bay area. If you are young and single this might be true. The Y Combinator folks claim it is the place to be to start a company, but for everybody else it is expensive. I can have a larger house in Texas for 20% of the cost and reduced cost of living across the board. That said I see little value in moving to the bay area because I doubt there is a corporate dream job that is going to pay me 5x more to live just as well. I have known several people who have moved from CA to TX just to afford a house (any house).

Finally, there are major differences between development skill and marketing skill (promotions). You can suck at one and rock at the other, but only one of those is going to make a solid first impression and only one will actually define your value after a year of employment.

</comment><comment><USER34> Oddly enough developers at my last company who were self-taught were consistently better than those that had formal CS education...

<comment><USER35> Hiring is full of so many biases, in this industry in particular. Maybe your employer is using that to their advantage by hiring good candidates other people turn away for no good reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Great story! It kind of makes me wonder about my own story to be honest, since I also do not have a CS degree yet I've learned to love coding. I am not really sure what my "dream job" would be though. I've thought about it on a few occasions and I always fall short of coming up with something that really "wow's" me enough to start down a new career path. Would be interested if anyone else has that same sort of existential crisis. I enjoy my job enough that I can't seem to come up with anything else that I'd love doing with my time, but I'm also not "in love" with my current job.

<comment><USER37> Your career does not have to be the great love of your life.

It's okay to have a job that's just a good day job and let your real passion live outside of it: family, hobbies, volunteering, maybe religious practice if you're so inclined. There is so much more to life than just your career.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> What I got from this was that you got your job because you learned to say the right things and show off the right stuff to the person(s) interviewing you, after 100's of failed attempts. I guess statistically, you were bound to get a hit eventually.

"Do a huge volume of work. It is only by going through a volume of work that you're going to catch up. And the work you're making will be as good as your ambitions."

\- Ira Glass

Yeah well... That doesn't necessarily translate into quality work in the real world now does it? I'll even go as far as saying that that quote in particular is the TLDR of this story.

</comment><comment><USER39> Love these stories. That's the way you do it. No whining. Pick a goal and work harder than others to achieve it. Plain and simple.

Also very much related to another discussion where the top n% (the rich) are blamed for just about everything. Here's where I get pounded [1] for daring to say opportunity in the US is what you make of it and the top n% have nothing to do with it.

I am sure there are a thousand people who want to be Bill Mei. Yet few are willing to take the risk and invest the time and effort he did in order to rise well past the average. What's sad is when some choose to blame people like Bill for their own failings.

Want a formula to be rich by the time you retire at, say, 55 years of age?

Work your tail off so that by the time you are 20 you can start to put away $1,000 per month.

In other words, be Bill.

Be frugal.

Invest the money somewhere relatively safe where you can earn at least 7% per year on average. If you pay attention that is not difficult at all in the long term.

Marry well.

Be frugal.

Do this and you'll reach 55 years of age with around two million dollars in the bank.

Continue to do it until you are 65 and you'll have nearly four million.

Or, if you actually start drawing $25,000 a year from your investment at 56 years of age, you will reach nearly $3.4 million by age 65.

It's actually better than that because I compounded interest annually in my calculation.

With the opportunities available today in the US (and other places) almost anyone can work hard for a couple of years and get to the point where they can save $1,000 a month. This is particularly true for a couple. The key is not to burn cash on stupid shit, which can be hard. After a while you make it part of your normal process. I drive a car with over 200,000 miles. I can go out and pay cash for just about any new car in the market today. Waste of money.

Not that hard folks.

I wish they taught kids about finance and money in high school.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848530](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848530)

</comment><comment><USER40> It's a good story.

I know many people who studied life science subjects like Chemistry or Physics and got jobs in top cs companies. Most of them were self taught(physics dudes use some level of programming )

To be a programmer, you need to have a solid problem-solving skill. Pick up a language(invest money in books in any one programming language, DS and Algo, OOPS) and invest time in websites like hackerrank.

You can easily build anything on the above skills. No matter how well you studied basic database and os stuffs, you will always need a google search before using in real life.

</comment><comment><USER41> Very inspirational, but I'd be interested in knowing what exactly the author was optimizing for in his job search, and how he decided that FutureAdvisor "best aligned with [his] personal values." In the current hiring climate it's not exactly hard to find a software development job in the Bay Area if you show a bit of talent, so I'm assuming with the number of contacts he made he wasn't just looking for the first company that would take him on.

</comment><comment><USER42> This exact process is something I seriously considered doing, but then I couldn't convince myself to spend that much time and effort trying to work for someone else. So, I work for myself on behalf of some very grateful clients. And that has turned out to be my dream _job_. (This became entirely too obvious when I found the espresso machine in my kitchen to be better than those in the most desirable Seattle-area startups).

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised the author mentioned taking linear algebra in high school. My high school math was bottom-of-the-barrel shitty (we barely touched on calculus, and the teacher didn't even know what an integral was). I don't know a single person whose high school math curriculum contained more than one calculus class, let alone linear algebra.

<comment><USER43> I was taught simple linear Algebra in year 11/12 in Australia during early 00's. Stuff like Matrix alegbra, vector multiplication and simple matrix transformations (rotations, shear etc). This was in the advanced math class at a public school.

At the time I thought it was pretty poorly taught and I didn't really understand it very well until we covered the same topics in first year of university.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Really heart warming to see this kid. Hope he achieves the success he deserves.

But he has to understand what skill sets him apart. The things that stood out were all the non technical part. He looks like a solid entrepreneur material. Hope he realizes and quit working for others soon.

</comment><comment><USER45> Good story. Well played! (Note: it's "cede control", not "secede control".)

</comment><comment><USER46> "Dream JOB"

There is no such thing my friends.

Unless you consider getting laid off or resigning within a few years your dream.

You will never be long-term wealthy or happy with a job. You might get rich, but not wealthy.

Mind your own business.

<comment><USER47> > Mind your own business.

Speak for yourself, champ. Not everyone's dream is to become rich, or wealthy, or anything of the sort. Some people just want to work on cool problems, be around interesting people, and be paid relatively well to do so.

<comment><USER46> You're missing the point.

"Mind your own business" means structuring things simply and in such a way that you get paid more (ie: minimize tax expense... which IS your biggest expense).

Wealth = Time * Health

You basically proved my point with:

"Some people just want to work on cool problems, be around interesting people, and be paid relatively well to do so."

Those things are possible due to time and health.

A job takes the best, sunniest part of the day away from you (usually) and your autonomy (freedom to work on cool problems of Your choosing, being around interesting people of your choosing and when you want to) and then your biggest expense is your taxes.

Wealth as defined by time and health is something we all want. Health is our most precious asset (ie: puts money in our pockets due to intelligence, ability to work) and time is our most valuable resource (can never get more, once it is spent you cannot earn more).

Anyone that does not place Wealth as one of their highest aims is either a complete idiot at worst or grossly misinformed about what Wealth actually means at best.

<comment><USER48> > "Mind your own business" means structuring things simply and in such a way > that you get paid more (ie: minimize tax expense... which IS your biggest > expense).

I'm having trouble figuring out what you could mean by this that isn't some variety of "you know how to make money? Already have a lot of money." What _do_ you mean?

<comment><USER46> Your dream could be to serve another man's or woman's dream. But why?

Quick example:

\- get paid $S as employee, government takes X% in income tax

\- get paid $S as consultant/corporation, government takes Y% in corporate tax

Usually X > Y and you have no ability to write-off your operating expenses as an employee, but can as an incorporated entity (phone plan, fuel, portion of your rent/mortgage, office supplies, etc)

It is about Structuring your life and professional dealings in a way to keep more money in your pocket (and have your money work for You, instead of You working for money).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I love this quote bro "No one owes you a great career [...] you need to earn it—and the process won't be easy."

And emails were cool as well. Way to show how to get your dream job <3

</comment><comment><USER50> Big revelation: Computer Science has very little to do with 'coding' Web pages using FrontPage.

</comment><comment><USER51> The author appears to be employed as a management consultant. If he's doing programming, is he in breach of his visa, presumably a TN?

</comment><comment><USER52> Whats the tldr of this story?

<comment><USER53> He got a programming job without a CS degree. There are so many programmers working without any degree, I fail to see why this blog post was worth writing and posting anywhere. Nothing special here.

Actually he does not even state that the job he got was a programming job, just that it was his "dream job." But what makes it a dream job?</comment></comment>


401(k) Plans No Longer Make Much Sense for Savers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-21/401-k-plans-no-longer-make-much-sense-for-savers <comment><USER2> The comments are better than the article.</comment>


The dumbphone strikes back - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116257-the-dumbphone-strikes-back <comment><USER2> Personally, what I'm starting to converge on is a smartphone plus a Macbook Air / Ultrabook / Chromebook, with the smartphone providing the tethering capability, and where I'm always carrying the smartphone, and carrying the light weight MBA / Ultrabook / Chromebook air with me 80% of the time. What I need out of the lightweight notebook is a keyboard, larger screen, fast browser (which one of the tablets or smartphones provide today) and minimal off-line capabilities (i.e., off-line GMail, Google Docs, and eBook reading). Anything else is a bonus. Today I'm doing this with a MBA, but I can easily see a next-gen Ultrabook or Chromebook meeting my needs.

Ultimately, the problem with a tablet is that its weight / capability just isn't favorable enough. Anything I can do with a tablet, I can do with a smartphone (although perhaps with a bit more scrolling), and a tablet's browser rendering speed and lack of keyboard makes it reach for a lightweight notebook every single time (and the MBA / Ultrabook / Chromebook isn't that much heavier than a tablet).

<comment><USER3> I think this is actually a hint towards the future of computing. I imagine that your smartphone will be your sole computer and then everywhere else (home, work, library, friend's house, etc) there will be something like dumb terminals that will associate with your phone to give you access to a bigger screen and keyboard and even extend the processing, memory, and graphics capabilities of your phone.

<comment><USER4> I would agree that the client's will get thinner (dumb terminals like chrome books), however I still think your own portable dumb terminal will be far more popular than a community / shared dumb terminal.

I use a MPB, but I'm envious of the MBAs and will no doubt eventually spring for one. I have absolutely no interest in a shared dumb terminal with a different feeling inputs / outputs (keyboard, mice / touch, screen).

Maybe if we're all using touch screens eventually, but I'm not convinced the keyboard will go away anytime soon, and I prefer my own setup. If anything laptops have become a very personal item, sometimes even a fashion statement (not my thing but it's there).

<comment><USER3> I was assuming we'd still have laptops and every other form factor we have now, just that you'd need your smartphone in your pocket to actually use your laptop. It is the hub, it has all your files, it is automatically backed up over the net, etc. Same thing with tablets. You could interface with an e-ink display for reading and an iPad-like device for entertainment and consumption. Your smartphone would store your save games and character data for various video game consoles, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dumbphones are underrated. Last year, when deciding whether or not to jump on the smartphone bandwagon, I did extensive research and ultimately came to the conclusion that it was just not worth it. Yet. If or when telecomms ever stop trying to handcuff customers with contracts, it might be.

Because, ultimately, it's never been about the _phone_ ; it's all about the _contract_ that Verizon / TMobile / AT&T wants to handcuff us to.

Net neutrality "lite" means that the telecoms have extreme incentives to keep us chained to contracts for as long as possible, no matter what advances in technology might make voice and data usage cheaper / bandwidth more efficient, or whatever.

Anyway, I ended up keeping my contractless dumb phone for voice only, and got an Android tablet for anything that would have otherwise persuaded me to want a smart phone. Unfortunately, I ended up needing to buy a data plan for it, which means I'm handcuffed to a contract anyway. But at least the tablet is optimized for "reading" which is what I'd want to do most of, had I a smart phone.

I guess that's where Verizon wins, spending my hard-earned money on lobbying for laws that decrease my power of choice, as a consumer.

<comment><USER6> I think that's a false dichotomy. I've never had a contract for any of my smart phones; pre-pay, all the way. For all my data usage out and about, 8 GBP (O2 web) is more than sufficient. But my phone is usually on wifi, around the house or on location at work. It almost completely displaces tablet usage; it's a rare task that makes it worthwhile holding a heavy iPad compared with my Galaxy Nexus.

<comment><USER7> >it's a rare task that makes it worthwhile holding a heavy iPad compared with my Galaxy Nexus.

I think this may end up being the future for most. That is many will couple a cheap smartphone or dumbphone with a tablet that offers PAYG (pay as you go) web access. It is simply too expensive to have monthly two data fees to pay for or a possible $9.99/month to add an extra device for shared data usage.

<comment><USER6> I think it's the opposite; have a phone with cheap PAYG data, and a wifi-only tablet. It's simply too inconvenient to lug around a tablet, so you seldom need mobile data access on it.

<comment><USER7> Fair enough, but I almost always carried a large screen with me whether it was in the form of a laptop or tablet. If the situation required tethering I would be losing significant battery life on my main communications device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The thing is that Android smartphones are getting really cheap. In Kenya, the Huawei Ideos is about $80 and is getting huge traction because of it. It's a bit more here in Rwanda but not much. The ZTE Blade is also pretty affordable.

I would bet we'll start seeing $50 Android phones (unlocked prices here of course) within the next year or two.

<comment><USER9> Is Android designed for such cheap phones, tho'? Is there a minimum hardware spec that's capable of keeping the phone responsive?

I just wonder if there's much difference between Android and Symbian once you get down to the $50 point. It's not like you're going to have any amazing hardware features at that point, so it more comes down to software, and how well that software is tailored for the device.

<comment><USER10> Well, if a $25 Raspberrry Pi can run Linux and play HD videos, there's no reason a $50 phone shouldn't be able to run Android at a reasonable speed.

<comment><USER11> Sure, if you don't care about zero battery life and a phone the size of a brick.

<comment><USER10> Raspberry Pi is smaller than many of today's smartphones, and there's plenty of room to put an antenna, battery, and camera in there.

<comment><USER11> ... and a screen :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The big advantage is battery life.

I now carry around a £5 dumbphone in my bag for when my smartphone inevitably dies on a night out (and yes, I do have a second charger at work). When I use the dumbphone as my main device, the battery lasts around two weeks.

<comment><USER13> Also small size, durability, light weight, and cool-running.

Additionally, they are replaceable- my dumbphone (which I left smartphones for) was $20 without a contract. If I get pushed into a pool or drop it off a cliff, I won't be especially put out.

<comment><USER14> After my smartphone was stolen, I switched back to a dumbphone and realized it was exactly what I needed, for the reasons mentioned above. I don't think I'll buy a smartphone ever again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is pretty interesting sentence: "Series 40 even supports tethering". Before this wave of smartphones for everybody started by iPhone, ability to use cell phone as an modem was so standard that nobody even cared to make up fancy marketing names ("tethering", seriously?) for that.

</comment><comment><USER16> A few weeks ago some bloggers posted photos of the phone they had in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced. The message seemed to be something like "look at the kind of shit we used before Apple reinvented the mobile".

I have no idea what model it is, but I've paid 9 € for my current Nokia in 2005 as part of a contract prolongation. Its original battery lasts one week and a half and I can't count how many times it fell to the ground. It works just as well as it did 7 years ago.

I don't know if "The dumbphone strikes back". Hell, I didn't even noticed it was ever defeated.

</comment><comment><USER17> My dumbphone is a 3 year old nokia s40 device. I wouldn't trade it for a smartphone - there is just no point. Battery life is good - at least 2 weeks on the original battery. It still works when i drop it which i do regularly. I've got an ssh client. I've got offline gmail if i want. I've made 6000 hours of calls and sent 45000 text messages. To replace it costs about 60GBP. The best thing is I'm posting from it now using Opera mini. Why would you need anything more?

<comment><USER18> If it can run opera mini and ssh it ain't a dumbphone.

<comment><USER17> It's definitely not a smartphone - so what is it?

Actual phone: <http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_6303_classic-2658.php>

<comment><USER18> A feature phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's only "all about the contract" if you sign one. I, for one, am perfectly happy to pay $649 for an iPod, a GPS, a portable video game console, a PDA, and a phone, but wouldn't pay a $5 premium for what passes for "unlimited high-speed data service" in the US unless it includes Wi-Fi tethering.

Similarly, the ability to "browse the Web" on a low-resolution screen with a "ten-key" keyboard is, to me at least, worse than useless, but too many so- called "dumb phones" are truly dumb: the last one I had accepted Bluetooth contacts, iff phone numbers had no punctuation, and the one before that blocked "international calls" to all numbers of the form "+1 nnn-nnn-nnnn" from the US, and reliably _powered off_ when connected to a charger overnight (support actually claimed this to be a "feature designed to extend battery life").

The phone book issues, at least, weren't anything that 10 minutes with Python couldn't fix, but still, it's annoying that "dumb phone" vendors still, in 2011, saw software as an afterthought.

Apple should really consider making a $150 contract-free, high-quality, 4GB "iPod smart dumb phone" with iCloud and Siri but no user-installed apps, for people with iPads who really just want an iPod and a decent phone.

</comment><comment><USER20> If you want a form factor other than candybar, or candybar with slideout keyboard, you don't have many smartphone choices - the only one I'm aware of is this blackberry, but I'm sure there are others: <http://us.blackberry.com/smartphones/blackberrystyle/>

I know a lot of people who, out of preference for the form factor, overall size, or protection for the keyboard/display, only buy flip phones.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've never had a smart phone. My 5 year old dumb phone has kept me reasonably happy. I'm typically either in the office at a computer, or at home with a computer nearby. My phone does have a simple WAP browser that I can use to check email in a pinch.

</comment><comment><USER22> One of the best things about dumbphone data usage is that it is a lot easier to control.

On Android an inconsiderate app can decide that it really needs to update 250MB of resources. There goes your data plan for that month...

I regret switching to a standard data plan as it was 'unlimited'. With the good old trusty dumbphone, a Nokia N95, I was able to connect by BT and then tunnel with SSH to VNC and RDP to my hearts content by laptop or Nokia tablet. An odd quirk was that the SSH data usage never even showed up on my plan.

</comment><comment><USER23> The article only really talks about demand for dumbphones by way of their relatively low prices, but there's a huge demographic factor as well. I've heard so many people from pre-cellular generations say they "just want a phone that makes phone calls" over the last few years that I'm not at all surprised to see articles like this. With the coming demographic shifts in the United States, I expect a very _healthy_ market for dumbphones for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER24> If only Nokia hadn't buried N900 and N9, more people would have experienced what a true mini laptop feels like.

<comment><USER25> I own N950 - I wouldn't die if I hadn't it. I use it up to full power, I love it, but I can replace any part* in it with something else either by delegating that to dumbphone or laptop.

* - problem with Nokia Maps for car navigation while from other side I love to be lost a little bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What is the smallest, thinnest dumbphone on the market? I want a very, very small phone for voice and SMS and that's it.</comment>


Ask HN: What features would you want in a low bandwidth, text based web browser? - <AUTHOR> Asking for a friend. <comment><USER2> I would want the features of links2 or eLinks [1] and the ability to whitelist or blacklist javascript per domain in a text file (.rc file). I would also want it to support reading proxy .pac files.

Most important, I would want a large community of active developers supporting it.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELinks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELinks)</comment>


How Steve Jobs handles trolls (WWDC 1997) - <AUTHOR> http://garry.posterous.com/how-steve-jobs-handles-trolls-wwdc-1997

<comment><USER2> Context: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDoc#Cancellation>

This guy is not necessary a troll, of course this is just speculation, but if a project he was working on for a few years got cancelled, I could pretty well understand his frustration, even if the decision to cancel turned out valid in the end from a business point of view. I don't think it is valid to stick labels on people (both on the "troll" and on Steve Jobs) without knowing the whole story.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure which part of WWDC this might have been from, but long ago there used to be sessions with Q&A, feedback forums, and even sessions where you could talk to the VPs. What this guy did could even be labeled as perfectly reasonable in the right circumstances.

Nowadays of course, only the very rare session even has a 5 minute Q&A, and "Ask the VPs" went the way of Jamba Juice and Mac Pro LAN party funtimes. I was there for the butt end of Apple that cared about face-to-face group feedback at WWDC and I rather miss it. 1-on-1 in labs, dev forums, twitter, and personally knowing Apple engineers doesn't really make up for the educational/entertainment factor of putting engineers on the spot in front of a large crowd with a controversial question.

<comment><USER4> _"Ask the VPs" went the way of Jamba Juice_

Jamba Juice is still around.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, and I go there everyday when I'm in L.A. :D What gives?

<comment><USER3> I meant Jamba Juice at WWDC, for sure. Nowadays and for the last few years, it has just been Odwalla bottles during the morning and then they go lock it up so I have to lug around a few bottles to last me the entire day. The food seems to stay about the same, but drink-wise quality seems to be going down :) I miss my Jamba Juice and espresso bar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd hardly call the guy a troll. He was a developer who had sunk time and money into developing with a technology (OpenDoc) that Apple had just killed. He wasn't polite, but he was justifiably upset and dismissing him as a troll is both inaccurate and unfair.

<comment><USER7> "Troll" has been watered down by some people to the point where it is used on everyone who disagrees with them.

<comment><USER8> "Troll" still means someone whose goal is to make someone look bad.

In this case, the guy asked a question that he already knew the answer to in an attempt to make Jobs look bad by being the messenger.

Jobs evaded the question, instead of answering it, which was the only way to save face. With trolls, this is almost always the case, because they set up their question in such a way that there's no good answer to it.

<comment><USER9> > _"Troll" still means someone whose goal is to make someone look bad._ //

I've always considered it as someone who is trying to push your buttons, get an emotional response from you, make you mad. Making someone look bad is not necessarily trollish, they may well be bad and the comment is attempting to reveal the persons true nature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The "inaudible" part of the question is: "I would like, for example, for you to express in clear terms how, say, Java, in any of its incarnations, addresses the ideas _embodied in OpenDoc_."

<comment><USER11> What does he say at the start?

>Mr. Jobs, you're a bridesmaid(?)....

>Here it comes...

<comment><USER12> "Mr Jobs, you are a bright and influential man."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Kind of reminds me of this story: [http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/08/kno- raises-46-million-more-...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/08/kno- raises-46-million-more-to-build-most-powerful-tablet-anyone-has-ever-made/)

I know one of the early engineers who wrote the low-level software for that device. He was one of the more arrogant engineers I've known and basically dismissed the iPad because it didn't have enough "power." When he showed me the Kno tablet, I said "I couldn't even fit that thing in my backpack, let alone on any desk. You're never going to sell this thing to people." He insisted that power was more important.

And it turns out he was wrong because he was thinking like an engineer. Kno scrapped that idea and decided to build exclusively for the iPad. [http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/kno-bails- hardware-30-milli...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/kno-bails- hardware-30-million/). Good on them.

</comment><comment><USER14> The "trolling" (hardly) aspect is a non-story. What's brilliant about this video is the message of starting with the customer experience, and then pick the technologies to serve the customer best.

Should you develop web, desktop, or mobile apps for your next startup? Watch the video. Find a problem, then pick the technology stack that provides the best solution and experience for your customers.

</comment><comment><USER15> This was really interesting, because lately I've been asking myself how to improve my design ability by starting with the technology or starting with the customer.

I will read through the App Engine docs every day or so to figure out what cool thing I can make out of the APIs provided. Maybe I should forget that and just think to myself 'what would I want to use?'.

<comment><USER16> I recommend reading:

[http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/human- centered_design_considered_h...](http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/human- centered_design_considered_harmful.html) <http://pragprog.com/book/lmuse/designed-for-use>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There's another part of the talk (not included in the linked clip) where someone asks Steve what things they'll do differently than the rest of the industry. Steve responds that being different isn't important; what's important is being better. The two have a back and forth on this issue — it's hilarious in hindsight given the perfectionist nature that Apple has come to embody.

And for what it's worth, the market seems to have proven Steve right. Nowadays, we can see some of Apple's competitors resorting to "different" in an attempt to gain traction. Doesn't seem to be working for them, either.

<comment><USER18> That is also a great example of how often Steve Jobs contradicted himself. After saying he didn't care about being different or spending money on TV ads, he started his talk at the next WWDC with the "Think Different" TV ad.

<comment><USER19> Perhaps Apple thinks different by being better, not just different for the sake of being different. I think maybe you're giving evidence for, not against, the post you replied to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's helpful to watch the preface video at: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=udyy2gQyNso#)!

This is a lesson Microsoft needs and has never really learned, neither under Gates nor Ballmer. The bizarre approach in Windows 8 that has all kinds of UI doing the same thing with no clarity around development platform sounds exactly like what Jobs talks about with people going in 18 different directions.

<comment><USER21> It also contains some really great words from Jobs like:

"You think about focusing, you think focusing is about saying "yes?" No. Focusing is about saying no. And you've got to say "no," "no," "no." And you know you're going to piss off people. and they go talk to the San Jose Mercury and they write a shitty article about you. And it's really a pisser. Because you wanna be nice, you don't wanna to tell the San Jose Mercury the person who is telling you this was just asked to leave, or this or that. So you take the lumps, and Apple's been taking their share of lumps for the last six months. In a very unfair way. And it's been taking them like an adult and I'm proud of that. And there's more to come, I'm sure. There'll be stories like that, they come and go, but focus is about saying no. And the result of that focus is going to be some really great products. Where the total is much greater than the sum of the parts."

You can also see why the guy questions (in OP video) Jobs: "And when you're finished with that, perhaps you could tell us what you personally have been doing for the last 7 years." -- Jobs mentions that some of the guys who "tell stories" haven't been doing anything last seven years.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for writing this down. That is a really great talk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Mistakes will be made, but that's _good_ because it means decisions are being made."

What a great insight, it's really striking a chord with me right now.

</comment><comment><USER24> "And, one of the things I've always found is that you've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards..."

This is such a common idea in business strategy that I have a hard time believing that most large companies don't, at least at the top, understand it. However, it also seems like a principal that is very hard to stay focused on as a product or service flows down throughout the company. There has to be a very good reason why this strategy flows through Apple's veins, yet gets lost in the mix of many of its competitors.

<comment><USER25> This is not an easy thing to do. Customers sometimes don't know what they want or how to articulate it.

If you keep having focus groups with customers and continually implement what they ask for you might end up with something like MS Office where you have a kludge of actions buried within and across multiple menu items.

As a contrast to that look at Windows Phone 7. If you've ever used it it's rather elegant. I feel that they looked beyond the "comments box" and dug deeper. It truly feels like they made sure the devices it runs on are communication devices (making calls and texting) first and layered in modern smartphone functionality (applications and cloud storage).

<comment><USER26> Working backwards from the customer isn't necessarily giving the customer what they're asking you for, but defining a product which will, in fact make something easier, more fun, or scratch an itch to the extent that they will give you money and convince their friends to do the same.

<comment><USER24> Exactly. Customer outcomes don't have to be described or defined directly by the customer.

<comment><USER27> And you have that famous quote from Henry Ford that may or may not have been spoken by him:

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

[http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/henry_ford_never_said_the_fa...](http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/henry_ford_never_said_the_fast.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Two great things to note about this video: 1\. Jobs puts a good amount of time thinking about what he is going to say. Many presenters would just start speaking, some would ramble, even just a little. Pauses can be a good thing in a presentation for both the speaker and the audience. 2\. Start with the customer experience. Absolutely.

<comment><USER29> Yes, he does spend time to think. Even when he's saying that you can please some people some of the time, you can tell that that is not the real answer, he's still thinking. I think that's his method, say some fluff to fill the time while thinking about the real answer. I saw this another time recently, and I quote from the article in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2924987> :

 _The first part of his answer I've completely forgotten because it seemed to be a canned spiel that he had used before. It had something to do with Apple's products or mission. I started losing interest because it sounded like something I might have even heard Steve say before at a keynote. I felt a bit disappointed that my one chance to learn something new and unique about Steve was probably about to end.

But then, as if to try again at my question, he added a second part to his answer._

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> His response is almost as great as jean patches. Man, that probably makes me sound like a troll. Oh well.

Here's to one of the greatest capitalist visionaries of our lifetime though. In jean patches no less.

<comment><USER31> That was the first thing I noticed too. What's up with that?

<comment><USER32> I think huge jean patches are valid 90s style. Maybe not as late as 1997, but they undeniably pair pretty well with the huge teal "Developers" jotted script marquee behind him. It was a different time.

<comment><USER33> Valid for Theo Huxtable, maybe. Not sure it was working for Steve.

<comment><USER32> He looks ridiculous, sure, but you can't look at that image with the huge stage decoration and the jean patches and think its any time but the 90s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is a great video. For one, it showcases SJ's confidence in deprecating technologies for the benefit of newer and better things.

It also underscores the importance of being able to translate tech "pieces" into compelling products. I'm an app developer. When reading documentation for the latest release of iOS or Lion SDKs, and seeing all of the new APIs, I feel like a kid with a brand-new box of Legos. The challenge (and art) is in combining these technologies to build something actually catchy.

</comment><comment><USER35> Direct link to YouTube: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE>

</comment><comment><USER36> > I would like, for example, for you to express in clear terms how, say java, > in any of it's incarnations, addresses the idea (inaudible).

I believe the (inaudible) part is "embodied in OpenDoc".

</comment><comment><USER37> Only in America could "what have you been doing the last 7 years?" be considered an insult.

I consider it an interesting and spot-on question with, in fact, a very nice answer, too.

Someone who can't deal with questions like that probably should never dream of becoming CEO of any company at all.</comment>


Ursula K. Le Guin's poetry reveals a writer humbled by the craft - <AUTHOR> https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/148040/always-beginning <comment><USER2> There's a new documentary about Usula K. Le Guin called _The Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin_ making the film circuit. This article has some background and a trailer:

[https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/new-documentary- the-w...](https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/new-documentary-the-worlds- of-ursula-k-le-guin-celebrates-iconoclast-writer/Content)

<comment><USER3> Link that works: [https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/new-documentary- the-w...](https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/new-documentary-the-worlds- of-ursula-k-le-guin-celebrates-iconoclast-writer/Content?oid=21443027)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not a poetry person. But not surprised she valued it so highly, singers and poets all through the SciFi canon.

I've read elsewhere she had no time for epub thievery from fans who wanted her on Kindle. "Respect my contract rights to refuse shit royalty deals" pretty much echoed by Philip Pullman and others.

<comment><USER5> Could she have simply sold epub copies on her website?</comment></comment>


A World Without Copyright - <AUTHOR> http://blog.urth.org/2012/05/a-world-without-copyright.html

<comment><USER2> These kinds of articles need more attention on HN. Copyrights have consistently been proven to be detrimental both the artist and the consumer.</comment>


Congressman Ted Lieu Statement on Apple Court Order - <AUTHOR> https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-lieu-statement-apple-court-order <comment><USER2> A lot of focus here will be on him getting the technical details right, and I agree that he does, but I'd like to focus on his last paragraph because I think he gets the response to terrorism right too.

      The San Bernardino massacre was tragic but weakening our
      cyber security is not the answer – terrorism succeeds when
      it gets us to give up our liberties and change our way of
      life.

The terrorists don't win by killing people. The terrorists win by causing a disproportionate response. Our best response to these attacks is to be brave in the face of fear rather than to expect our government to make us safe.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Congressman Lieu is one of only four computer science majors in Congress.

There's four computer science majors in Congress? That's four more than I would've thought.

<comment><USER4> You'd be surprised. There was even a math major with a masters in computer science who ran for president, Herman Cain.

<comment><USER5> Herman Cain is a Comp sci major?! Wow, I really had no idea...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is always talk of preventing the next terrorist attack, but there is almost no talk about what is considered acceptable risks.

The attacker inflicted horrific mayhem and death for sure, but let not forget people die of other more common untimely causes all the time.

We put more anger against human agents rather than the impersonal forces of nature.

And it also gave people excuses to revel in their bigotry and suspicion.

What do I know? I wasn't angry that people die in a terrorist attack in France. Nor am I angered or saddened by the attacks in California.

Even now, I respond to the fact that the FBI are the bad guys because of an abstract threat to our privacy.

Terrorists don't matter to me.

They can kill a thousand men and women in a single day, and I wouldn't bat an eye.

What they did was certainly horrible, but they are of no more consequences than a thousand tragic motor accident until congress pass laws and law enforcement demands more power or that we should torture people.

Funny how that works.

That's not to say that I don't have emotion. On the contrary, the most common emotion for me seems to be cringing for other people when they made fools of themselves.

But it is true that terrorist attacks make for interesting news story, in the Chinese sense of the word.

<comment><USER7> We accept the risk of a car crash when we get in our car. Going to the mall or movies doesn't have the same mental acceptance of that risk, making it more tragic.

I think you can be sad for the victims and their families and still awknowledge that other issues are more important sometimes.

<comment><USER8> We accept the risks of Freedom when we get in our Democracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >>> Can the government force Google to provide the names of all people who searched for the term ISIL?

Note the use of the term ISIL, not ISIS. America is all about language. Selection of terms, even pronunciation, has political meaning. Obama speaks of ISIL. Trump, ISIS. Brits, wanting to be politically correct, speak of "the so- called Islamic State", while those wanting to sound connected use the on-the- ground term "daesh". I'm tempted to create a venn diagram of these different political groups. At the centre of this diagram I should find the mythical voice of reason, a bridge transcending the idiots and capable of speaking to all sides.

<comment><USER10> I noticed a similar phenomenon many years ago in the spelling of Hezbollah. I think Hezbollah is the accepted transliteration into American English, but authors on the far right of the domestic political spectrum distinguished themselves with increasingly distorted spelling. Hizballah being common, but to make it look more like Klingon some wackos started adding apostrophes, as in Hizb'allah. This last version was especially popular on the radically zionist blog Little Green Footballs, and was localized to such an extent that one could recognize people who had fallen into that circle by their use of that spelling.

I think both of these words are dog whistles in American politics, used to subtly signal, as a kind of secret handshake, that the author and the reader are on the same side.

<comment><USER9> It's the "allah" part. Someone told them that Hezbollah means party of god and "allah" is the US spelling. At a subconscious level they probably enjoy using the term in a negative connotation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's comforting knowing there actually are people in congress who understand why weakening our cybersecurity is not the answer.

</comment><comment><USER12> Kudos to Ted Lieu. It is frustrating that a piece of legislation passed in 1789, is being substantively applied in a manner that erodes privacy, compromises business and does little to provide further security in ever changing threat landscape.

</comment><comment><USER13> Honestly, out of every argument I've heard in regards to this whole debacle, this is the absolute BEST one:

> This FBI court order, by compelling a private sector company to write new > software, is essentially making that company an arm of law-enforcement. > Private sector companies are not—and should not be—an arm of government or > law enforcement.

I get that, if court ordered, a company many have to hand something over. But to be court ordered to work for the government completely changes a company's business model (even if only slightly). It hampers their business (Apple isn't going to magically find, and then fire, the engineers who would need to work on this; they would have to be redirected from other projects).

Yes Apple would be compensated for their time but that doesn't change the harm it could do to their business, not just from a PR standpoint, but from the fact that they are forced to become a government contractor* and would need to redirect / shuffle resources from other projects.

* Yes yes I know Apple participates in government contracts but being forced into one is a little ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER14> And there's STILL people who insist Apple is bent on protecting the privacy of a dead terrorist...

</comment><comment><USER15> This argument makes no sense. There's no legal right to be free from court- approved government surveillance. The government has always had the authority to compel the cooperation of third-parties in search and seizure cases. This is an awesome power, which is why you need to convince a judge to issue a court order to use it. The only way that we ever thought encryption could thwart surveillance is by raising technological barriers. This was Apple's whole argument in the first place! "We can't help the government hack into your iPhone because it's impossible for us to do it ourselves". Turns out that they were wrong; the government did find a way to hack into it given Apple's secrets (their code-signing key).

Now Apple is bending over backwards to try to make it sound like their original argument still applies, when in fact they're making a totally different argument from what I'm going to call "encryptyness", like Colbert's "truthiness". It goes like this: "we tried really hard to protect this technology from our own capabilities, and we convinced our customers that we did, even though it's now clear that we didn't; it would hurt us to be seen helping the government in contradiction of our previous claims, so the government should pretend that we can't help them. They shouldn't be able to get court orders for anything that's encrypty enough." Or even more legally laughable, that the government shouldn't have search and seizure authority period.

The other arguments in support of Apple also have no legal merit. My favorite is the slippery slope argument, that if the government gets a taste of this power that they'll come back for more and use it on everyone's phone. Judges are fully capable of distinguishing between different circumstances. This case is decided on the merits of this case. Tomorrow's case is decided on the merits of tomorrow's case. This is a fundamental principle of common law.

The government's not asking Apple to create a backdoor for them. The door already exists and Apple created it for itself, when they didn't include Apple as a potential adversary in their threat model (which is contrary to their public claims). They could very well design their phones to not have this vulnerability, but it would require a more sophisticated approach. Apple wants the benefits of owning 'your' phone, _and_ the benefits of not having any power over it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

<comment><USER16> > Judges are fully capable of distinguishing before different circumstances. > This case is decided on the merits of this case. Tomorrow's case is decided > on the merits of tomorrow's case.

The US legal system is heavily based on following precedent.

<comment><USER15> Precedent applies when you have facts that are fundamentally equivalent. Forcing Apple to hack a particular phone is _totally different_ from forcing them to ship phones with backdoors.

<comment><USER16> So when the fact is the government has another phone they want decrypted, and the precedent is that if you lean hard on Apple, they will make it easy to brute force, then the result will be another phone unlocked. And another. And another. And then they'll start leaning for something harder. If you think that this has a chance in hell of being an isolated case, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

<comment><USER15> > So when the fact is the government has another phone they want decrypted, > and the precedent is that if you lean hard on Apple, they will make it easy > to brute force, then the result will be another phone unlocked.

And what's wrong with that? If they get warrants for each phone.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Eric Schmidt: How Google Can Help Newspapers  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569570797550520.html

<comment><USER3> People are willing to pay for indepth reporting - this type of content can be sustained by subscriptions. People are not willing to pay for newsbites or breaking news, since this type of content is widely available for free - <USER2> kind of content can be sustained by advertising. But can these two models combined match the pre-internet revenues newspapers are used to? Probably not because of the cost models of pre-internet news gathering and also because of the choices advertisers now have.

<comment><USER4> The problem with the industry is that the world is shifting to new (lower) revenue models but most newspapers/publishers are still living with old (HUGE) cost models.

I'm still waiting for the first big media company to make a truly radical shift in their cost structure... only then can they survive. (IMHO)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Schmidt contradicts himself : He tells us that newspapers can get good money using targeted ads , and then he tells us that google(which is the leader in ad targeting) get very little revenue from ads next to newspapers stories.

So ads might not be the solution for the current problems of newspapers.

But if you look at google news , every story gets published in hundred of newspapers with some little variation. Seems like a huge redundancy , that takes a lot of work , and shares the ad revenue between many many sources.

<comment><USER6> > _every story gets published in hundred of newspapers with some little > variation. Seems like a huge redundancy, that takes a lot of work, and > shares the ad revenue between many many sources_

Exactly. The newspaper industry as a distribution model, with many players redistributing content created by a few, and sharing the revenue, just won't make sense when distribution online is effectively free... both in terms of cost and expectation of cost.

However, the content creation industry will thrive. Non-syndicated, subscription services like the Economist will do just fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think what annoys murdoch et al. is that they are dealing with a commercial entity (Google) over which they have very little leverage, if any. This puts them in a very weak negotiating position. However, I read an article recently speculating on whether it might be in their interest to foster competition between search engines for their content, and in particular between Bing and Google. To do this, the article suggested they ban Google from indexing their content, and get Microsoft to pay them for the privilege. [http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?st...](http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14955213) The open question with this strategy is whether they could make enough money from Microsoft to offset the loss of click through revenue from Google. Moreover, it is unclear whether they could get sufficient scale to hurt Google in terms of the number of news organisations that participate.

</comment><comment><USER8> _The claim that we're making big profits on the back of newspapers also misrepresents the reality. In search, we make our money primarily from advertisements for products. Someone types in digital camera and gets ads for digital cameras. A typical news search for Afghanistan, say may generate few if any ads. The revenue generated from the ads shown alongside news search queries is a tiny fraction of our search revenue._

This argument is disingenuous.

Sure, the big G doesn't make any money off of news searches. But the triple-A content provided by newspapers are what makes Google so useful in the first place.

Google is then able to monetize its relationship with users when they do highly profitable product searches. It's like people going to the gas station and picking up a candy bar from the convenience store (where all the money is made.)

<comment><USER9> _The revenue generated from the ads shown alongside news search queries is a tiny fraction of our search revenue._

Translation: We make so much money that the piddling revenue your entire industry generates means nothing to us.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think that Google and publishers are placing far too much hope in targeted advertising. The reason: As Rupert Murdoch has pointed out in the past, there is a nearly infinite supply of advertising inventory thanks to the explosion of online outlets and social networks. How many billions or trillions of page views are served every day by media sites, YouTube, Facebook, etc? Even if ads were perfectly matched to the people who were reading them in terms of demographics and relevance to their buying interests, the problem would not go away -- there are still billions or trillions of pages being served, albeit with fewer wasted impressions. In this kind of environment, prices have to stay low.

</comment><comment><USER10> Interesting that comment about atomicity of consumption. A similar thing happened to the music industry, who relied for so long on the ability to shift a lacklustre album on the back of a popular single. There were loud complaints from up high when consumers got the power to cherry-pick the good tracks and leave the dross on the shelf. I'll spend £2 on a Sunday paper and read less than 5% of it. Is that a good thing, to waste that much paper, that much labour on filler articles just to make a profitable package? If they attempt that same tactic on the internet once the paywalls go up, I can't see it working.

</comment><comment><USER11> Also here: <[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=974342>](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=974342>).

</comment><comment><USER12> Why is he listed as "Mr. Schmidt" rather than "Dr. Schmidt"?

<comment><AUTHOR> He's not a _real_ doctor. :)

Seriously, though ... The WSJ probably has a style guide which tries to avoid honorifics and degree references. It is hard to track and verify, and is inconsistently used among recipients.

BTW, a problem which I think requires a solution is a degree verification marketplace -- not just for employers and reporters to check someone's credentials, but also for people who may need to get some sort of confirmation on their own for whatever purpose. My wife had to do that for a vocational school which wanted to make sure an earlier degree from a foreign college was legit, It involved mailing or faxing a copy of her transcript to some service which sends back a letter saying it's real -- and costs $75. Inefficient, labor-intensive prone to abuse, and way too expensive -- prime candidate for a software solution, IMHO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A bit off topic, but there's a second problem to be revealed from this. It seems like google is trying to provide more, and better quality content to consumers. I feel as a consumer of information, its an addiction. Once I start reading I find hours have passed. There's a loop of finding something interesting, and thought provoking. Often questions arise, as I research the answer to those question more arise. Then i'll click another link and the loop continues. This is a problem I've thought quite a bit about solving. The solution always seems to be gain more will power. But I find it really difficult.</comment>


Unexpected Technology - steam engines and solar power - <AUTHOR> http://www.terrajoulecorp.com/unexpected-technology/how-it-works/

<comment><AUTHOR> These guys have built a very interesting system when sidesteps the photovoltaic effect by keeping the energy management in the heat domain. Basically for sub-megawatt installations they have a 24/7 solar solution in some climates.</comment>


Ask HN: How to go from Idea to Product? - <AUTHOR> Starting from zero, how do you initiate projects to turn ideas into products or even prototypes?
From a thought about building something to design it, implementation, release, and maintenance without losing focus.
What do you think is the driving force that keeps you going
What advise will you give to people who just write down ideas, those who lack execution? <comment><USER2> The best way to initiate a project and turn it from an idea into a prototype is to start. It's literally that simple. Building a product is hard, but the only way it's going to happen is if you start. Other than that, the steps are the same as starting anything else. Determine what you think is a good first step to take, then do it. Then pick the next step and do it. Keep doing that until the product exists.</comment>


Ask HN : What do you think of our new app design? (plus the history of it) - <AUTHOR> http://behindtheclock.timmyontime.com/post/98498643/the-history-of-our-design

<comment><USER2> I am not a professional, but can share my personal experience. (looking at ss5u.png)

1\. TimmyOnTime has a shadow and the following text - "time tracking..." does not, besides they have different fonts (I understood later that TimmyOnTime is a logo and the following text is an explanation, but at the first time I was confused)

2\. I would make the header text giving the most important message bigger and cleaner.

3\. The main picture on the page makes no sense to me. I see 6 different images: Address book? (what does your app do with it?) Adium (I don't know what it is) AOL instant messaging (I am using ICQ, Jabber and Skype) and 3 other images below having no meaning to me. Then 2 minutes later I notice the text explaining that I can use your app with Google talk, MSN and aim.

4\. It seems to me that text on your button has more space on top then on bottom (is it your intention?)

5\. Your customer feedback uses the smallest font, gray color on a white background what makes it hard to read and notice, I would value my customers most of all and make their feedback more noticeable.

Once again I am not a professional, just a software developer and these are my personal thoughts and impressions.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly the type of thoughts we're looking for. I forgot to mention that the screenshots were not the actual screenshots we'll use. They are there for the general feel of the "mockup".

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> With all due respect: developers are not designers, and visa versa. _Puts on M$ Monkey Suit_ , "Delegate, delegate, delegate!" I know you're not a big company, but that doesn't matter — if you're developing a consumer-facing web application, you need to be thinking about UX/UI, branding, etc. The bar is raised, web-app market is ultra-competitive, consumers will ditch a bad looking site.

In my humblest opinion, your current website is better structured and more professional looking than ss5u.png, but that's not to say it can't be improved. I too am not a fan of the color scheme (brown, orange, etc.) but from a design standpoint, it's feels like a complete thought while ss5u.png looks and feels like an unfinished wireframe (as a customer, I'd wonder if your product is unfinished too). However, there are elements from ss5u.png that I think you can merge, like the call-to-action button for one, the lighter color scheme, etc.

I think people mistakenly believe a designer's job is easy, and quite frankly it's not... it's torture. Reading your blog post, I was happy to see you came to the same conclusion. :) People see a clean and simple design and say, "that's easy, I can do that!" but fail to realize the amount of work and iterations that it took to get to that point. Visual harmony requires balance, and there's a reason why few companies can reproduce Apple's simplistic product design. It's NOT easy.

Designers live in a perpetual cycle of NEVER being satisfied because we tend to be obsessive-compulsive. I'm glad you got to experience this, but now I think you should put down the mouse, get back to hacking, and let a professional handle the job. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> A designer job is infinitely hard to do and I learnt it from our various tries to get something good looking. Maybe I have a dream of being a good designer and that's why I can't delegate it ;)

On your side, what do you do to have a good design?

<comment><USER3> Every designer has his own process: some prefer to sketch first, some use photoshop as their sketch tool. When people watch me use Photoshop, it's very much akin to hacking because I've got all the keyboard shortcuts memorized like the back of my hand. That being said, I tend to start with PS because I'm faster and it's more eco friendly.

If you really want to be a designer, then you need to teach yourself the basics. Photoshop suffers from being too accessible, so a lot of amateurs tend to ignore the basic universal rules of design. For starters, learn the basics of grid design, information architecture, and typography. There are a lot of great books on Amazon, but you should be able to get a strong grasp of the basics just by googling:

[http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/03/26/grid-based- design...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/03/26/grid-based-design-six- creative-column-techniques/)

[http://vandelaydesign.com/blog/design/resources-grid- based-d...](http://vandelaydesign.com/blog/design/resources-grid-based- design/)

Here's another link that went around Twitter, a lot of simple things (but not obvious to a developer) I think you can apply to ss5u.png such as proper white space / padding, etc..

<http://wefunction.com/2009/04/quality-within-web-design/>

Like all crafts, you can't expect to be a design god overnight... it takes practice, studying other's work, reading, etc. I think it's admirable that you are learning to design, and if you really love it — keep doing it!!! But from a professional standpoint and as a business owner, don't practice on your company until you're absolutely confident you're up to snuff. If you were B2B product, I think design can be a much lower priority _to an extent_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> you should make Add firstname.lastname@example.com, Add timmyontime and Add email@example.com these into links (well i know u can make the one for AIM into a link)

and this is a reason to use the app, not a feature: 98% instant messaging VS 2% web Type what you are doing instead of clicking in a cumbersome interface.

<comment><AUTHOR> In fact, you're commenting of the old site. To comment on the new one : <http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2460/ss5u.png> . We could make the "add timmy" clickable but it doesn't work well on every computer (in fact, on my own computer).</comment></comment>