Quantifying Simplified Chinese - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@idreyn/quantifying-simplified-chinese-9ec3980d7d35

<comment><USER2> I'm not a fan of this argument. It all hinges on the assumption that information density is what a language should optimize for. The problem is that _ease of disambiguation_ is also an extremely important feature in human languages and one that tends to oppose the goal of information density. In the extreme form, information density would suggest reducing all characters to binary or some other compressed encoding, but due to the necessity of easy disambiguation no human language could get to such an extreme state and remain widespread.

One observed example of the importance of disambiguation is the phenomena of extremely common words becoming irregular. In virtually every single language that has verb conjugations, the conjugations of the most common verbs—to be, to have, to do, etc—are irregular. As languages change and acquire verb conjugation, there is actually a documented process of irregularization for the most common words! The same is true with phonetic irregularities (e.g. "you" in English or the は particle in Japanese).

Language is read far more often than it is written. Especially in this age of electronic input, stroke reduction is a trivial concern compared to recognition of very dissimilar words such as "nothing" vs "sky" (無 vs 天) / (无 vs 天) or "noodle" vs "face" (麵 vs 面) / (面 vs 面). I think the Chinese character simplification is a fine short-hand tool, but it's not great for literacy and it's not great. Japanese simplifications, on the other hand, were a lot less extreme. They simplified some of the most ridiculous traditional characters, but generally left the semantic information in characters intact.

I used to write quite a bit about this topic: [http://toshuo.com/2009/japanese-character-simplification- via...](http://toshuo.com/2009/japanese-character-simplification-via-repeat- symbols/)

<comment><USER3> I agree, Chinese simplification was extreme, whereas the Japanese simplification tried to retain the idea of the original character. Possibly, an additional political motivation of the simplification was to make it harder to read old literature. This was the same regime that launched the cultural revolution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > with a whopping differential of 21 strokes, 廳→厅 (hall) is the most drastic > change in the entire script. As 丁's phonetic clue is [not very useful], > several users of traditional react with horror to this change

Perhaps because that character is often used together with the 餐(dining) character which was never simplified to make 餐厅(restaurant), which looks jarring when used together. Some good news is that 餐 is often unofficially simplified to its topleft component only, i.e. 歺, which is the 16 strokes reduced down to 5. I often see 歺厅 on signs near where I live (Wuhan) which looks much cleaner. Perhaps another round of character simplification by the PRC is in order!

 _Edit:_ Just noticed the picture in the linked-to source showing the same thing. I must have chosen a very common example.</comment>


Happy Meal Project - Artist Photographs McDonald's Happy Meal For 137 Days - <AUTHOR> http://www.refinery29.com/happy-meal-art-project.php <comment><USER2> This will happen to any similar foods. I have done this experiment many, many times with meat & potatoes dishes accidentally left in the pan on the stove for a period of months. (You all are fortunate you don't have to live in my kitchen, we'll put it that way.)

By day two or three, what little water remained after cooking evaporates, and they visibly shrivel a bit. Six months later, they'll look essentially identical to day three.

Is it because of preservatives, artificiality, etc? No. I cut and peel potatoes, take the meat out of the meat box, and fry them (and onions) in a lightly oiled pan. No secret sauce required.

 _If you allow them to get and remain wet_ , you get a real science project on your hands.

<comment><USER3> Quote the artist:

"I'm not the first person to do this," said Davies. "And I don't think it's just McDonald's."

She's right, but probably not in the way she meant it. I get my rolls from a bakery here in Germany, and if I can't eat them I just leave them in the bread box, they turn hard, then you crumble it and use it for dumplings.</comment></comment>


Dai/Nakamoto emails - <AUTHOR> http://www.gwern.net/docs/2008-nakamoto <comment><USER2> the b-money paper is very well worth reading even today. appendix A hints at what we call today proof of stake. the property club in b-money is more of a political organization than the participants in the Bitcoin network:

"community is defined by the cooperation of its participants, and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange"

"I hope this is a step toward making crypto-anarchy a practical as well as theoretical possibility." [http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt](http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt)

amazing how mute Wei's reaction was and still is. b-money was a nice idea, but it seems he was never too much interested in impelementation. the request is obviously fake. Nakamoto was clearly well versed in the history of this topic and was very likely to be around in 1998.

other than that, gwern is still the authority on Bitcoin. "What's wrong with Bitcoin is that it's ugly."

[http://www.gwern.net/Bitcoin%20is%20Worse%20is%20Better](http://www.gwern.net/Bitcoin%20is%20Worse%20is%20Better)

<comment><USER3> That's a good quote: "What's wrong with bitcoin is that it's ugly." It refers to the protocol and the technical implementation, and it's quite true for the reasons mentioned in the article. For example, it seems possible that the world's largest mining pools may eventually try to unite in order that a single entity can control more than 51% of the hashing power invested into bitcoin. As mining technology becomes more specialized, the probability of this will continue to go up. Being able to control the fate of an entire currency is tempting, and it will get more tempting as bitcoin gains widespread adoption.

In spite of all that, it still works, and works reasonably well. The protocol is also full of all kinds of nice features planned for the future. There was an article that went into these plans in a lot of depth (which unfortunately I can't find offhand) but the point was that bitcoin is capable of far more than just being a simple money transmitter.

So that's the protocol aspect. But what about the social aspect? How has that fared?

It turns out that bitcoin is dangerous to its users. The reason it's dangerous is also its core strength: irreversible transactions.

There have been so many losses due to theft and fraud. Some guy on Reddit posted that he'd lost his 16BTC after he took his macbook into an Apple store for some minor repair. Some employee popped his harddrive into an external enclosure and scanned it for wallet.dat files, then made off with his coins by using a mixer. No one could prove anything, and that thief is now thousands of dollars richer while the victim is that much poorer.

One unexpected reason for the danger to consumers is the legal protections provided to corporations. It's relatively easy to start an exchange right now. It's as easy as starting a corporation and putting together a website. And if users are persuaded to send their coins to the exchange, and the exchange happens to lose those coins due to e.g. a massive technical problem, an unforeseen protocol problem like malleability, theft by an attacker, or even theft by the founders themselves, then the users are completely hosed. They lose everything. What happens to the corporation? It's dissolved, and that's that. No one from the failed corporation is exposed to any kind of legal risks. That's the whole point of a corporation: so that the people starting them aren't directly liable for the corporation failing. But when a bitcoin exchange or webwallet fails, all of the users lose their money.

This unfortunately happened to me on Mt. Gox. They recently discovered 200,000 BTC that they accidentally misplaced, so hopefully those will be distributed among customers in a few months and I'll get about 10-15% of my holdings back. In the meantime, it's pretty clear that the exchanges can basically do whatever they want. How can consumers know which exchange to trust? The answer is that you can't trust any of them. There is no mechanism by which to recover from disaster, and disaster is just a matter of time. Bitcoin The Protocol has the chance to last decades. How confident are you that your favorite exchange (or broker dealer like Coinbase) will last that long?

Beyond that, there is still no turnkey solution for consumers to manage their coins themselves. There are _solutions_ , but they are uncomfortable. They require careful reading and time, both of which are inconvenient. The current best solution is a dedicated cold storage computer (or Raspberry Pi) running Armory, and to make multiple paper backups and store them yourself in various locations, so that it's unlikely your computer and your papers are all wiped out simultaneously.

And even with that kind of protection, someone can still hold a gun to your head and force you to send them your bitcoin, and there's not a damn thing you can do to protect yourself if they succeed. All transactions on the blockchain are public, so if someone gets wind that you control a 1,000 BTC wallet, suddenly you're a target. If they compel you to send your coins to them and somehow get away, you'll never get them back. Heck, if they force you to send them your coins and _don 't_ get away, it's still unlikely you'll ever get your coins back. They'll just sit in prison and bide their time, then enjoy your coins as a pension plan for when they get out of prison.

Is there hope? Perhaps. As far as I can tell, what's needed is for an exchange/dealer like Coinbase to purchase some kind of high-risk insurance which is guaranteed to pay out in the event of a disaster. The insurance plan would have to be able to cover all coins that the exchange holds at the time of the disaster. Since Coinbase has >1M user wallets, Coinbase probably controls quite a lot of coins. Let's say that they hold ~1/4th the number of coins Mt. Gox claimed to: about 200,000 BTC. Let's say the price per coin at the time of the disaster is $400/coin. That's $80M of losses which the insurance company would have to cover. And _how_ precisely will they pay out to the exchange's users? Or even to the exchange themselves? Let's say the insurance company hands over $80M. Now the goal is to use that $80M to buy back enough coins from some other source in order to return all lost coins. Well, you can't do it! You'll skyrocket the price of bitcoin from $400 to $MASSIVE_NUMBER if you tried to buy 200,000 coins, especially if everyone realized what you were trying to do. So the exchange may still wind up hosed! And of course, that means the _users_ will wind up hosed in the end.

<comment><USER4> To respond to one of your points:

> The current best solution is a dedicated cold storage computer (or Raspberry > Pi) running Armory, and to make multiple paper backups and store them > yourself in various locations, so that it's unlikely your computer and your > papers are all wiped out simultaneously.

The Trezor, a hardware wallet that signs transactions without exposing private keys to the computer it is connected to just shipped its first unit: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553818.0](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553818.0)

Dedicated hardware wallets (which will hopefully be cheap and readily available) may be the future solution to malware related theft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To me, the argument from silence is compelling. Bit gold is not just similar to BitCoin - it is virtually identical. The only thing BitCoin has that BitGold doesn't is that concensus is formed by the holders of a majority of the computational power, rather than the majority of nodes. This is what makes BTC byzantine resilient. And the question Wei Dai asks - why would he cite b-money and not bit gold - is precisely why I'm inclined to think it is Szabo. For him to not mention Bit Gold in light of the similarity is highly suspicious indeed.

<comment><USER6> A smart man, especially someone that understands security, would foresee the argument from silence. If anything, I think it is a deliberate red herring to make suspicion fall on Szabo.

<comment><USER2> it worked pretty well. one way to think about it: did Nakamoto want to be known? then reason from there. then consider the negation. the deeper point in all of this: why do we trust people in the first place?

<comment><USER5> i think nakamoto/szabo is ambivalent on this point. i think he cared enough to cover his tracks enough so that no conclusive evidence of his identity can be found. but he did not care enough to clear certain circumstantial evidence from the picture, such as aspects of his writing style, and the times of day he posted which link him to szabo and the aforementioned forward-dating of posts.

i think some part of nakamoto wishes to have credit for BitCoin, or at least not permit someone else to take credit - which is part of why he came out of hiding to redirect people away from dorian nakamoto. to protect him, but also to ensure that credit was not conclusively misattributed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unfortunately, I don't follow Bitcoin a whole lot, but could someone please tell me what is the point of all this and why are people so 'excited' to find out more about Satoshi.

(the font of the website is fine @stephen)

<comment><USER8> Satoshi changed the world and the newsmedia and humans in general are obsessed with geniuses and successful people. It's also a natural phenomenon that people are drawn to something that's mysterious and forbidden (read the book "Artful Persuasion").

I doubt it has much to do with anything rational, such as benefiting from finding out who he is or obtaining more insight from Sathoshi. It's just deep rooted human curiosity.

<comment><USER7> Hey man,

thanks for the answer, totally hear what you're saying and I'll look into that book, thanks for suggesting it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What is the reason for Satoshi wanting to remain anonymous? The others (hashcash, bitgold, b-money creators) didn't seem to bother with anonymity. This is why I highly doubt Satoshi is actually a pseudonym.

<comment><USER10> One reason may be that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't say it fits the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Now, the technology (the opensource daemon, and the network of nodes running it to create a peer to peer ledger and all that jazz) is really an quite interesting experiment in distributed systems.

The culture around Bitcoin the 'currency' at the moment (and forseeable future) is more complicated.

At worst its a pyramid scheme, and at best its an asset bubble. In practice I would say it most resembles a sophisticated, decentralized Multi-Level- Marketing scheme (MLM) of a particularly novel and insidious variety (Note that MLMs such as Amway & Herbalife have plodded along for years). This can be said not just of bitcoin, but of the entire ecosystem of cryptocurrencies.

Ironically, the fact that it has value derives from its perverse incentivizes of its "investors" to create a cycle of pump and dump bubbles, that bring more people into the fold each time. These speculators provide a liquidity pool that makes bitcoin useful to those who actually use it because they are shut out of the traditional payment system. Alarmingly, it seems at the moment that this group deriving actual utility (over credit cards) consists primarily of hackers, drug dealers, gamblers, arms dealers, pornographers, and other participants of the grey/black market economy. Yes, there is a big pool of legitimate merchants accepting bitcoin because of low transaction fees & no chargebacks, but adoption by non-speculator 'legitimate consumers' is far beyond merchant adoption.

The end game is uncertain. If the liquidity pool eventually grows large enough (resulting in a stable, high value) such that people feel confident to start settling contracts denominated in bitcoin (see mpex.co for a particularly sophisticated example), this will represent a massive challenge to the power of the state to control commerce and enforce taxation. In other words, an crypto-anarchists wet dream.

Perhaps bitcoin will stay somewhere around the size it is now or perhaps an order of magnitude larger in which case it may stay a fringe payment technology with a shady reputation, much like Liberty Reserve and egold before it.

It is also possible that governments will regulate it away by requiring all addresses be registered (see: [http://blog.gardeviance.org/2014/03/how-to-fix- bitcoin.html](http://blog.gardeviance.org/2014/03/how-to-fix-bitcoin.html)). Or maybe they will just get fed up and attack it by targeting it at its primary point of centralization: all mining ASICs are currently fabbed at TSMC. TSMC could perhaps could be coerced into adding some kind of backdoor or kill switch into the next generation of mining chips. Note that other cryptocurrencies have and will adopt ASIC resistant PoW schemes that limit this at a risk of allowing a 51% attack by a large botnet (or entity with massive computing resources like Google or the NSA).

Either way, Pandora's Box has been opened. Future cryptocurrencies are in the works that use cutting edge advances in zero-knowledge proving techniques to completely eliminate the need for a public transaction history. With regards to bitcoin (and other Nakamoto-chain based cryptocurrencies) specifically, the widely noted scaling problems will be solved by ongoing work on 2-way pegging to side chains, tree-chains, and other ways of 'sharding' the blockchain, while maintaining bitcoin's enforced scarcity.

\</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

So really, the reason why I want to know who Satoshi is, is because bitcoin is an incredible hack. Not just of computers and networks, but also of minds. To secure the network, mining has to be incentivized by giving the coins value, which means Satoshi anticipated not just the technical aspects of enforcing concensus in the ledger of coins, but also the economic & psychological aspects of getting people to think the coins are valuable (and that their value would increase). I'd personally like to know what motivated he/she/they to build & design Bitcoin, and what his/her/their thoughts were as it took off, and what he/she/they think of the current ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER11> just me or was that page barely readable due to font, color, spacing, and width?

<comment><USER12> Someone posted that method on HN not too long ago. It's meant to increase readability by helping the eyes distinguish one line of text from the next. It's ugly and a tiny bit distracting at first but it really does work. Just give it a try. I zipped through those 2 paragraphs really quickly. I think it's Javascript based.

<comment><USER13> It's based on this: [http://www.beelinereader.com/](http://www.beelinereader.com/) by the looks of things (there's a beeline.min.js script included at the bottom of the page).

It looks very weird, but I can believe that it might improve reading speed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What is the fascination with finding out the real identity of Satoshi? Mere curiosity or ... ?

<comment><USER15> We may soon see Satoshi on the Forbes list of billionaires. It'd be a journalistic scoop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder if someone actually considered the possibility that Satoshi Nakamoto might not even be a single person?

<comment><USER2> very unlikely. all the code is written uniformly. all the posts carry one style. it looks as if at the time there was only one person in the world who was crazy enough to think this could actually work.

<comment><USER17> hi there. i'm the management behind btcd, an alternative full node bitcoin implementation, and i can say that it is very unlikely the original code is the product of a single person. additionally, the amount of work that must have gone into testing and setting the myriad constants for bitcoin is huge, far more than a single person is capable of in a few-year period.

i won't share all the magic but consider this: have you noticed how there are big and little endian flips littered throughout the code, especially in the script code? do you think that a single dev would just arbitrarily assign endianness throughout the code, then have the script code be big endian?

<comment><USER18> "do you think that a single dev would just arbitrarily assign endianness throughout the code, then have the script code be big endian?"

I have seen crazier things. A single developer who works on the code a bit, takes a break, then works on it a bit more can easily have switched conventions.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why do so many technical recruiters suck? - <AUTHOR> http://www.mikebz.com/2011/11/why-do-so-many-technical-recruiters.html <comment><USER2> For the same reason most (if not all) real estate agents are worthless. There's no barrier to entry and there's the allure of easy money. Until the profits collapse the market will be inundated with wannabes.

<comment><USER3> There's also relatively little feedback reinforcement for the good (quality) recruiters.

Since remunerative reward is based on quantity, not quality, market incentives are diametrically at odds with what both hiring managers and talent would benefit by.

One solution is to not do business with or encourage the idiots in any manner whatsoever.

I also jealously guard my time. If you're wasting, it, particularly on the phone, assuming you've reached me in the first place (I'm increasingly extremely phone-hostile), I'll respond with "Thanks, not interested, have a nice day. <click>". That's a single sentence, punctuated with the call termination.

I've only got in a fight with one recruiter over that -- he called back. I noted that he was wasting both of our time and tarnishing his (and his employer's) reputation by the second. He didn't call a second time.

<comment><USER4> I am waiting for Google Voice or something similar to get here so that I can have all calls from an unknown number go straight to voicemail (including _not_ actually ringing).

It is not even that I get that many calls but it would be nice to know that you won't have some guy call you.

I can't even imagine how annoying it must be for people who have business cards out there.

<comment><USER5> FWIW, we're considering getting one of these for similar reasons:

<http://www.truecall.co.uk/>

Not sure if it's available for use outside the UK, but we'll settle for just stopping calls to our phone from outside the UK from ringing given that 100% of them are junk. (In theory, BT can block them on request. In practice, that request has not been effective, so we're looking for a more direct approach.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a Tech Recruiter and former Developer I've been first-hand witness to the incredible hypocrisy and mind-boggling anti-logic perpetrated by the recruitment industry and I've attempted to answer your question at length in my blog post 'All that's wrong with the recruitment industry' [http://voltsteve.blogspot.com/2011/07/all-that-is-wrong- with...](http://voltsteve.blogspot.com/2011/07/all-that-is-wrong-with- recruitment.html)

Someone in the comments below mentioned how they don't feel that the recruitment industry can be disrupted whereas I completely disagree. The industry is already suffering and multiple different factors are playing a part. As PG mentioned in a recent comment on a similar post, more and more companies are investing in building internal recruitment teams.

For the record, I agree that most tech recruiters suck. Even if you find a decent one, chances are they work for an organisation that imparts a vast amount of KPI's and compliance issues that generally restrict their capabilities and creativity.

<comment><USER7> Is it hard finding staff that have sufficient technical knowledge?

It feels like the recruitment industry in general is very cut throat and has high turnover.

And in an industry that has a shortage of skilled people to begin with, that's probably not a good thing.

<comment><USER6> _Is it hard finding staff that have sufficient technical knowledge?_

Absolutely. It's also very low on the priority list of most hiring managers within the recruitment industry. The number 1 priority is finding people with solid recruitment experience, priority number 2 is finding people who can bring existing client relationships with them, priority number 3 is finding people who are incredibly driven and want to make a lot of money. Technical capability struggles to break the top ten in terms of priority.

 _It feels like the recruitment industry in general is very cut throat and has high turnover._

100% accurate. I've never worked in a career where I've felt as insecure as I do in recruitment. Despite making my company a _lot_ of money this year I am constantly looking over my shoulder as the age old adage is that you are only as good as your last deal. My technical competency counts for very little when it comes to my bosses perspective on how valuable I am to the business despite the fact that my technical competence is what sets me ahead of most other recruiters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The problem with recruiters is that they're the only (potential) vendor/service provider to your business that doesn't actually understand the product they are delivering to you.

* My hosting partner knows how operate servers and datacenters

* My employee payroll + benefits partner knows employee laws.

* My lawyer knows corporate law

* My CPA knows accountancy and tax rules.

* My recruiter is unlikely to understand very much about developers, the types of people developer I need to hire into my specific role, the needs of an engineering hiring manager, etc.

Why, therefore, people continue to use them is beyond me.

<comment><USER9> You just answered your own question. People who understand very much about developers and the types of developers for specific roles are the requirements of a good technical manager.

A recruiter who's very good with technology and who can program is better off being a developer financially.

A recruiter who's very good with people and navigating the intricacies of a project is better off financially being an internal HR manager or project manager.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> As an aside, I hate this post for one reason and one reason only: the hyperlink at the bottom alluring like-minded techies for a job in his/her company.

And that is not just in this post. Almost every such post that talks about something that strongly resonates with a techie and then drops the..."oh...btw...we are hiring..." at the fag end.

Please do mention if you require a green card or a H1-B or something related to residence status required of the position. I am forced to open up the line of communication with a are-you-willing-to-sponsor-a-H1-B. Only two out of a whole bunch I emailed had the courtesy to reply.

<comment><USER11> I would say the visa problem is probably the biggest contributor to the current lack of available developer talent.

If the US ever relaxes its visa laws, I foresee a big drop-off in the demand for recruiters…

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nicely captures my issues with tech recruiters. The other big disconnect is that since tech is in so much flux, you want to hire smart generalists who can pick up new technologies in a few days if necessary.

Most recruiters have no clue how to find "smart developers". So instead they do a google search for "Java developer looking for job" and spam you with the top 10 hits with some great insights like "OMG this guy's great... he's _only_ done Java for the last 20 years!!!1!". They don't understand why that's NOT a good thing in tech.

<comment><USER13> As someone who's more of a generalist than not, it's almost impossible to arrange interviews through recruiters -- most of them are only looking to match up acronym/skill/buzzword X with length of time Y. A big part of that comes from missing the technical background to properly appraise the value of those technical skills.

<comment><USER14> I find that's one of the worst things about recruiters, not only do they have a really high number of false positives, they are awful at picking out non- traditional candidates that any engineer would say "wow" to. The only possible function I can think of for recruiters is to shuffle around mediocre, faceless programmers from one large company to another.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is like complaining "Why is so much spam email irrelevant to me?" If someone cold-calls you their business model is to churn through many people who are annoyed before they find one who hires them. The great recruiters aren't going to cold-call you. So there's a selection bias.

</comment><comment><USER16> It is a classic sales technique to ignore objections and to turn them into new lines of attack.

        - ... You have to go to HR first.
        - Okay…  in that case why don't we have coffee or lunch next week?

Bam. Objection ignored.

<comment><USER17> A classic _bad_ sales technique. I'll put up with a lot of things, and under some circumstances I'll accept someone acknowledging what I've said and saying they can't provide that, but if you give me the impression that you just plain don't listen at all, you've just ended the conversation, permanently.

<comment><USER16> Think it through. It's a good sales technique.

There are broadly speaking two kinds of sales. There is the kind of sales that takes months -- eg flogging SAP to a sap -- and there are the kinds that take minutes.

Recruiting falls into the second category, along with second-hand cars, door to door encyclopaedias, life insurance and so on.

In the short-sale field, when is the salesman ever going to see you again? If he can help it, never. There is no incentive to favour the long term. The sale is made _now_ or not at all.

Hence high pressure sales tactics like "never take no for an answer".

When you recognise a short-sales technique, the only winning move is not to play. As logical types we want to appear fair and rational and the salesman will use that against us. Stick to your guns. Decide what you want in advance and refuse to negotiate.

<comment><USER6> > There is no incentive to favour the long term. The sale is made now or not > at all.

As a Tech Recruiter I completely disagree. Granted a significant proportion of the recruiter community tend to favour the short term gain but ultimately the only way to succeed in the industry is to cultivate long term relationships and generate repeat business.

<comment><USER16> It'd be nice if there were more like you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> couldnt access the article, but fwiw since i'm in the china sw development industry where a significant portion of hires are done through headhunters:

\- they don't know the least bit about software development, typically wih english or business degrees \- as a result, their search effort is solely based on keyword or company profile matching., i.e. to a certain extent large companies seem to have similar processes and requirements like hp, ibm, so this works some of the time, you could also say that facebook and google have similar requirements \- in china, because of the volume of applicants, there's no time to speak or meet with all candidates so you really just have a resume which doesnt say an awful lot

i spend my time mentoring recruiters on how to more effectively search for candidates, usually it's a process of giving them direct feedback on each resume, after developing somewhat of a repoire, it usually gets nominally better.

what would be more effective is if someone like me who's been a developer and now in development management, goes out and opens a headhunter agency, but that wouldnt provide the level of pay that i'm getting nor really interest me to be a broker.

i've dreamed of a social network like github + linkedin where not only actual code is available, but also a strong network of past and present co-workers are able to vouch for you. e.g. this guy worked with werner vogel at amazon and wrote significant portions of ec2 and has a lot of like minded followers of his work, of course an extreme case, but hopefully you get the point. it's about making the world of software developers smaller through social networks so everyone knows who and where the good, bad, and middle performers exist.

</comment><comment><USER19> They usually suck because they don't understand technology.

To me, a good technical recruiter would be able to take my resume and actually understand (to some degree) what it is I'm doing. From there, when talking about my knowledge and interests, they'd be able to respond and interact, then tell me about actually relevant jobs on their hands.

Instead, the conversation is a like driving the wrong way on a one-way street. They always have the best job for you no matter how wrong of a match it is or how unqualified or even un-interested you may be. At best, most "technical recruiters" are "connectors" as other comments stated. Beyond that it's almost all spam.

<comment><USER20> Believe it or not a recruiter can do a very good job filling technical positions without a strong understanding of the technology. All you need to know to get started is how to spot a qualified person, and the hiring manager can help with that.

<comment><USER19> I'll go with "not" when it comes to the recruiters in the Chicago area. I regularly get contacted for roles I have no measurable experience in, such as Django jobs, or really anything web related. While I have extensive Python knowledge, I haven't touched Django outside of a tutorial or two on a rainy day.

They seem to want to extrapolate Python expertise to cover everything that uses Python, but it doesn't work like that. I'd love to talk to a recruiter who understands this.

<comment><USER20> Successful recruiting is all about having a great process. Domain knowledge in a specific area is helpful, but not required. For example, I might talk to a hiring manager about the following...

"Why do you need REALLY need a Python developer? Is it because you have problems that a great software engineer without Python knowledge can't solve? If so, give me a couple examples of things you need that only a Python whiz could do, and I will make sure applicants can do that. If we can't attract the right applicants, I will ask you will need to dedicate more time to recruiting or refine your expectations."

I may come to you with a Django job, but I will be prepared to tell you why the hiring manager doesn't need Django experience at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The author should take his own advice more seriously. He links to his companies job postings, which consist of a long list of mostly boilerplate required qualifications, and little to nothing about what the company may have to offer prospective employees.

Not even a hint that they may be interested in the needs of the people they're looking to hire.

</comment><comment><USER22> I did some (non-tech) recruiting about 6 years ago, and I always thought that given the time and effort, I could be an awesome tech recruiter. Maybe some day I will, although it currently isn't in my pants. Here's what I'd do:

\- I'd want to take a long-term approach, and keep in touch with the people that I worked to place. After 2-3 years, they might just be up for a new position.

\- I should know their skills deeply. Forget reading resumes, I'd read Github accounts. I should be able to read what skills they have, not be told them. Obviously not everything a person does ends up on Github, but the things they most enjoy and are best at often do. If a person enjoys working in Ruby, I'm not going to try to shoehorn them into a PHP position because they won't be happy and won't output the best.

\- I'd want to deeply understand the actual needs of the placed position. So many Craigslist job postings that are by recruiters clearly don't understand the requirements of the job vs things that are nice to have.

\- I also understand tech deeply. I don't be that poorly qualified recruiter who mistakes C# for CSS. I'd be able to talk about what testing frameworks people are using, or how they like to approach a problem in a non- confrontational way.

\- While this might sound like marketing-spin, I would want to really think of it as just connecting friends who need jobs to companies of friends who are hiring. I actually do this now a good bit, since I know a lot of qualified tech people and send them emails when I get them about positions that really seem to speak to them. I never ask for money currently, because well... its just helping out friends and I want to see them happy.

<comment><USER23> How many of these people change employers in a given year? What fraction of them will do so through you? How much can you get for finding those people a new job (on average)?

The product of those three numbers is the amount of money you can make each year with your approach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Their behavior is just as frustrating from the other side. Since my resume says I've used Python for scientific computing, I must be a Django expert that has experience building scalable e-commerce sites, right?

That's what 90% of the recruiters seem to think, and I get a neverending stream of jobs from them not even remotely related to my experience.

<comment><USER25> This happens to everyone I think. I had numerous "leads" tossed my way by recruiters and (unfortunately) a few interviews last year that revolved around my experience with <buzzword>.

Since I don't particularly want to work doing <buzzword> it is not anywhere on my CV. Good manners keeps me from saying "Did you arse holes even READ my resume?" when you've pulled me in for an interview for a position I don't want.

I understand that not everyone involved in the selection process will have a deep comprehension of technology, but the department you are hiring for should. Send them your shortlist for vetting, or better yet, let them send YOU the shortlist. If you're a 3rd party recruiter.. ..educate yourself.

It will save a lot of wasted time all around.

/rant

<comment><USER24> I've generally tried to get the employer to tell me up front exactly what the job entails, before we waste any time actually interviewing. Unfortunately sometimes that doesn't work, because they think they need somebody that knows <X> when they really need an expert in <Y>.

Next time I'm looking for a job, I think I'll scrub most of the mention of languages and technologies from the resume, and see if that helps. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> all the real estate agents who lost their jobs have gone into recruiting now.

<comment><USER27> "Subprime recruiting".

"Tech jobs will never go down".

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> We've never found recruiters useful. Perhaps it was the fact that most of the positions they recruited for were for large companies, and their candidate pool reflected that. Once however, when we were truly desperate, we tried to work with one agency.

I said right away that the only way this would work would be based on a success fee, and they accepted that. Also, I demanded that they send me a sample of anonymized CVs before we signed anything. So a couple of hours later they send me these three CVs, and when I looked at them, I immediately recognized the candidates (it's a small world, isn't it?).

The next step was to call the candidates and ask them if they're were really looking for a job. Turns out not one knew anything about the company in question and none of them were interested in switching jobs.

</comment><comment><USER29> I agree, most suck. The only ones who don't are ones with many years in the industry they services. There are ex-engineers that make good engineering headhunters. There are ex-brand managers that make good marketing brand managers. Even still, the good ones still have minions running around getting meetings for them, and having lunch, and cold calling, and generally being worthless. The lackeys are in the same league as used car salesmen.

One subtle point the writer may have missed: \- I can't really source candidates from agencies that are not on the vendor list. You have to go to HR first. \- Okay… in that case why don't we have coffee or lunch next week?

The second line wasn't ignoring an exception. It was a subtle was of saying, "If you're not hiring, perhaps I can find you a job."

</comment><comment><USER30> Despite being 50 years young or so, software still is making the transition from art to science.

You can't recruit for something you don't understand.

\- They're not technical \- They're not connectors \- They don't understand the job as being beyond a list of skills \- Education doesn't come close to making up for experience

</comment><comment><USER31> They violate the worlds shortest and most profound sales course. "Know your stuff, know their stuff"

From the article "I am thinking – does this guy not want to hear me? I am detecting a pattern: not only he doesn't want to listen, he actually doesn't care to consume any information at all."

</comment><comment><USER32> Anybody have experience with Hackruiter or TopProspect as alternatives?

<comment><USER4> Never heard of them, actually.

But the recruiter space doesn't seem to need disruption, since it fundamentally only makes sense in a pre internet age. Today candidates can find any company they like online and apply right then and there. The same goes for any company which can contact a candidate directly (either through a his/her blog if the prospect has one or through any of a number of aggregator services).

Today recruiters are like travel agents -- mostly useless, except if you don't have the time to look stuff up yourself.

<comment><USER33> I interviewed for a job as a recruiter once (what can i say, I was desperate). Anyway, during the interview, the recruiter told me that they get hired so that the company can select specific kinds of candidates (national, football player etc). In essence, recruiters can allow companies to discriminate against minorities or whatever without having legal problems. This probably doesn't apply in the tech field but it may be why big companies still use them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Oh god, interaction with that site is horrible. Looks nice but..

</comment><comment><USER35> I would say the example recruiter is _not_ actually a connector. Based upon my understanding of the term, a connector has deeper connections than that, and is capable of actually putting people and concepts together in his/her head in a way that is relatively unique.

The recruiter described sounds like a more technologically advanced version of a beggar: ask everyone you ever come across for a handout, and you'll eventually get one.

Idiot recruiter story: in college, I did part-time work for the Corps of Engineers. It was basically an intership program, though with poorer guidance than you'd expect of one. I kept getting recruiter calls to work on Ada projects, despite it being nowhere on my resume. Recruiters refused to acknowledge my very relevant work experience (multithreaded C++) because they don't consider military experience, despite the fact I had nothing to do with the military...

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm curious how this recruiter would earn $15,000-$20,000. Is that the going rate for a full time hire? Is it usually a percentage of starting salary? Does it vary widely from firm to firm? Is it %20 of the starting salary?

<comment><USER37> Recruiters typically get 20-25% of first year salary, if their candidate is hired. If you're getting recruiters calling you, go ahead and ask them what their fee is. I've done it, and they do give you an answer.

That said, given such a high % fee, you also get an idea of how often they are actually successful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is something we're trying to address at CodeEval.com. We're trying to make it easy for start-ups to hire without needing a recruiting team or contracting a clueless recruiter.

We've created a community of pre-screened developers who are actively or passively looking for jobs at startups. They have proved their programming chomps by solving dozens of programming challenges on our site.

If you're a start-up looking to hire without dealing with recruiters get in touch with us - firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER11> It seems that every week there's a couple posts complaining about recruiters these days.

It's one of the reasons why I've launched my own site to try and improve recruiting (for designers, at least): <http://folyo.me>

<comment><USER39> I would have read with bated breath if you'd explained the problem with recruiting, and how it can be fixed.

But instead, you just shared a link. To your paid service.

I can feel the marketing, and I don't like it.</comment></comment>


Moshpits Simulation - <AUTHOR> http://mattbierbaum.github.com/moshpits.js/

<comment><USER2> Too late to complain about lack of circle pit and wall of death. However, I will point out that it kind of seems like it assumes a uniformity of violence, whereas empirically speaking you always have at least one person who is just seriously dangerous either due to intoxication or mental issues combined with large stature/strength. This person both repels others with a stronger force as well as draws in/invites the odd skirmish. Also missing is the fact that in certain scenarios, the non-moshers will aggressively shove the moshers back into the pit, versus here where it seems like they simply tolerate them to whatever extent packing will allow.

<comment><USER3> My thinking exactly. Cool science project, but doesn't resemble a real life pit at all. The circle pit and people pushing along the perimeter are required.

<comment><USER4> haha. Maybe I got caught up watching this a little longer than you guys, but at times the pattern does begin emulating a circle pit. Both directions.

It's sort of hard to determine a "push" from the perspective of spheres, but IIRC I saw some of that behavior as well. I mean pushing insofar as red pieces would occasionally move erratically away from the walls.

I do agree about the lone mad rager acting as an unstable epicenter, though. That's key behavior, and something I did not notice in this simulation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting that they broke it down into only two types of particles: moshing and not-moshing. In my experience there should be a third particle for the "border guards" -- the people who help keep the shape of the pit and actively push people back in (as opposed to a non-mosher particle which merely absorbs hits).

<comment><USER6> Don't forget the natural variability of said border guards who might, should their favorite song enter the scenario, join the moshing group.

<comment><USER7> Also theres people who will avoid the moshers unless specifically behind 'border guards' - in this simulation everyone essentially acts as border guards; the grey dots dont try to avoid the red just hold their ground.

Really cool app though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm actually far more impressed (or stunned) that there is a paper for "Collective Motion of Moshers at Heavy Metal Concerts". Does this qualify as science?!

Edit: Ah well, i always thought a paper would be like a diploma or similar, turns out it is a 2 and a half page article written by 4(!) people who watched youtube to simulate red dots in a mass of black dots. Anyway, i'm underwhelmed.

<comment><USER9> If you'd rather go meta, there's a metal song about moshing:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWWdgCqh-1g>

"Toxic Waltz" by Exodus. Great song, fantastic album.

<comment><USER10> My favourite: S.O.D. The Milano Mosh - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKKAXtaxco>

      You think that, you're really hard
      You think that you can mosh
      Got your suspenders, and got your boots
      You'd better wear armor, you fuckin' fool
      WE MOSH, until we die,
      WE MOSH, until you try.
      You think, that you can try,
      But can you do ... the MILANO MOSH !
      REPEAT VERSE

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not that realistic for low numbers of particles. Those guys would get their asses kicked for being jerks running around and crashing into people like that!

<comment><USER12> They definitely wouldn't be wandering around semi-randomly like they do with a low density of particles.

Depending on the genre, they'd probably end up towards the front pushing a few black circles into the stage.

<comment><USER13> Depends if the band is trying to get a circle pit going it seems to be semi realistic. But in general yes I think people are generally either trying to get closer or fighting off others who are trying to get closer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The math behind it, from "Collective Motion of Moshers at Heavy Metal Concerts"

<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.1886v1.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if they properly controlled for the type of concert. In my experience, moshing will vary by genre with hardcore moshers tending to be more independent (see: windmills and kung-fu kicks). I also recently swapped coasts and noticed that West Coast pits seem to seek out the torodial "circle pit", while East Coast pits a more chaotic.

It is a neat idea for a paper, but it seems like it needs a bit more thought to be useful for real-world applications.

</comment><comment><USER16> If you increase the box size, it just becomes a bunch of idiots running around on a large field and some people watching them.

</comment><comment><USER17> This seems like it can be used to simulate a liquid well. If gravity acceleration is added, then the whole thing is blurred and a threshold applied, you can get something like this: <http://www.patrickmatte.com/stuff/physicsLiquid/>

</comment><comment><USER18> Missing is - 1\. Wall of death. 2\. Collapse of the mosh when one person trips over. 3\. Crowd surfers and the effects of a boot to the head.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's neat, I can get a flow going from left to right and it manages to stay stable. Doesn't seem useful till we have torodial moshpit though.

</comment><comment><USER20> Dude, you need to autoplay the audio on page load.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yay HORSE the band as a soundtrack!</comment>


Ask HN: After working for myself what job positions am I suitable for? - <AUTHOR> I'm 30 years old and have been working for myself for about 6 years now, developing my own ideas into successful mobile applications (over 3 million paid downloads). I'm now looking to move on from this as I'm a little burnt out and I would like to work with more people again. The issue I currently have is wondering what positions I should apply for.
Although I studied in computer science and assumed I would be a programmer, I find that for me, programming is a means to an end, the end being getting an idea into something real. For my current apps I take them through the full lifecycle myself, from idea, to feature requirements, UI design, programming, marketing, release and then the direction of where they should go in future updates. So I have quite a broad set of skills and experiences, yet besides under my own business my only other work has been in web development.
While looking at job positions I'm questioning if employers will see that I have anything besides programming to offer and if I would be capable of working in a more product development/management oriented role. <comment><USER2> > I'm questioning if employers will see that I have anything besides > programming to offer...

Don't count on hiring managers (worse still, HR & recruiter bozos) to recognize some untapped potential in your background. That's not what they're trained to do.

> The issue I currently have is wondering what positions I should apply for.

Don't apply for positions. Instead, look for people who you can help. People who have problems that you can solve.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand what you're saying. I'm hoping that it isn't some untapped potential but rather something I have proven, but I'm wondering if since it was proven in my own business, will it just be overlooked.

Thanks for the advice on looking for people with problems I can solve.

</comment></comment><comment> a-saleh We actually have something called 'Senior Consultant' as a position:

[https://careers-redhat.icims.com/jobs/50182/senior-mobile- co...](https://careers-redhat.icims.com/jobs/50182/senior-mobile-consultant--- ios/job)

The story of how this came to be a.f.a.i.k. went like this:

1\. we have awesome* enterprise grade solution for managing mobile development. It has centralized build farm for mobile apps, automatic back-end integration with data-browsing for managers, e.t.c

2\. some of our customers don't really want to build up their own mobile teams to work with this, so they outsource our consultants as well.

Last project I know our consulting guys were working on was a sort of a checklist application for the repair crews of British Railways a.f.a.i.k ?

* when it actually works ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> That does look quite interesting, I will keep an eye out for something similar in my area, as it appears although it is a remote job the applicant would need to be based in North America. Thanks.

<comment> a-saleh Weird, most of our devs are in fact in Ireland.

<comment><AUTHOR> As part of the listing it mentions weekly travel to clients across the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I say go right for the jugular.

1\. Find 25 IDEAL companies you would just love to work at.

2\. Use your honed, battle-tested hustler-powers and hit up the founders. As they will definitely see your full potential.

3\. Getting their emails these days is child's play. Crafting a must-open, well versed email is another thing. Be persistent and followup as they are busy.

4\. Make sure when you do talk to them..you know their business model/product/users VERY well. Then demonstrate where there is potential room for growth aided by technology. Sign NDA's if you feel more comfortable.

Create your position. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm curious why you're burnt out of doing your own thing that seems fairly successful.

I think being involved in the whole process of making something sounds amazing but obviously my vantage point as a regular employee at a company is much different.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not too sure, I think I have contributed what I want to to the type of apps I create at least in terms of what is possible for a one man team, and I know from experience that it's getting harder to release new apps successfully as an indie developer, at least apps that aren't full of in app currency purchases, adverts or backed by a big brand.

I would still like to be part of the whole process, but I'd like to work on larger products and perhaps step away from the day to day programming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 3 million paid downloads is a lot ... in your position I assume the thing to do would be connect with other serial founders and do a startup together.

</comment><comment><USER6> Make sure they don't take advantage and have you working 2+ roles instead of one for the pay of 1!

</comment><comment><USER7> Another option would be to become the boss yourself and hire people to carry out ideas for new apps

<comment><AUTHOR> I had considered that a few years ago but at that point I wanted to use the freedom to travel. Right now I'm not sure how sustainable a small app workshop type company would be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would love to talk to you. Contact info on my profile.</comment>


Bill Gates' Battle to get into Augusta (1998) - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB906008880358760000.html

<comment><USER2> So did he get in?

<comment><USER3> [http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2002-09-27-augus...](http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2002-09-27-augusta- list.htm)

He got in.

<comment><USER4> I am deeply disappointed with their selection criteria.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why would Bill Gates care about such bullshit? Minus nerd points for him.

<comment><USER6> Minus nerd points, and plus sales points. No doubt you get to talk business with some of the most powerful world figures inside the club's closed doors.</comment></comment>


Why LEDs Are Better Than Halogen Bulbs – KODAK LED - <AUTHOR> https://www.kodakledlighting.com/blogs/news/why-leds-are-better-than-halogen-bulbs <comment><USER2> 7\. They can come with automatic disassembly: sometimes manufacturers pack up the electronics so thightly, heat get trapped enough to melt the hot glue keeping it all together.

8\. They age very fast: The LEDs themselves may last for 30 years, but don't expect them to still be as bright after one (if the capacitors don't give out first).</comment>


Talent, luck and success: simulating meritocracy and inequality - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@hongsupshin/talent-luck-and-success-simulating-meritocracy-and-inequality-with-stochasticity-501e0c1b4969 <comment><USER2> One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed. This has grave implications on policy and really blinds people born with a silver spoon to the real problems in society as they have a 'i deserve it and they don't syndrome'. Contrast this with a poor society that is growing rapidly where you see islands of wealths with certain individuals, at least people over there do not harbor illusions of meritocracy.

In general the more educated and developed a society is, it is much more meritocratic than others, however i still feel it is not enough especially for those who have everything stacked against them.

May be sometime in the future we would have a universal human rights charter that expands and decides what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide in exchange for basic responsibilities. This way life will not always be a rat race and the poorest and unlucky can at least have some dignity.

<comment><USER3> Depends what you define as success. Hard work generally does lead to gainful employment and the ability to afford a home/car which used to be the canonical symbol of success in America.

If you think success is "be as rich and respected as I desire to be" then that absolutely will not hold.

<comment><USER4> Depends on what you define as hard work. There's stories on Reddit's late stage capitalism subforum about a graduated biochemist entertaining customers at Starbucks with random facts; it was considered cute by the original poster, like, wow, a smart barista. While it was sad that he worked hard to get his papers but couldn't land a job.

<comment><USER5> I don't see how job opportunities in any field reflect on whether or not hard work is effective?

<comment><USER6> It proves that hard work had nothing to do with succeeding. Getting a biochemistry degree is hard work yet it gave the owner nothing more than a job a high schooler can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of the biggest issues that discussions of inequality ignore is generational issues. People view wealth as an individual thing. However, if you look at American society, probably the majority has been generational. Each generation worked and saved to better their children's lives.

An example of this is probably in immigrants. Many people came with practically nothing but he clothes on their back. They took whatever job they could find and worked like crazy and saved like crazy and pushed their children like crazy. Their children in turn started out better than their parents and worked and saved and pushed their children and their children did even better. After a few generations, the descendants of immigrants have entered the highest ranks of society.

What drives the "myth" of the American dream is not necessarily that I who started out with nothing will be well off. It's that through my hard work and their hard work my children will be better than me and my grandchildren and their children will be well off even though I started with nothing.

That version of the American dream has worked far more reliably than the individualistic model. Even once persecuted and discriminated against immigrant communities in the US have succeeded in this version of the American dream.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure the Y-generation would agree it worked for them.

The student loads have never been such a burden. The cost of housing skyrocketed. If they want to eat for the same price as their grand parents they need to eat junk food.

I mean: my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma.

But the flat screen prices are very cheap so they got that going for them.

<comment><USER9> There is truth to this, however there has also been major changes to how we live and the expectations.

"my grand parent could buy their own house while only one was working, and a job that didn't require any diploma"

Yes, but they probably couldn't buy a house anywhere in the world they wanted. The house size was probably much smaller than the sizes of today's suburban houses. I would argue that one could by a small, economical home in the midwest.

"If they want to eat for the same price as their grand parents they need to eat junk food."

Again, look at the diet lifestyle choices of Gen Y versus their grandparents. My grandparent (I'm a Gen Xer) told me stories of eating onions for a month because his parents were migrant workers and they worked picking onions when they were in season.

Even today, it is possible to eat simply (rice, beans, in-season vegetables and fruits) for a low-price. You won't be eating much meat, and you won't be eating "luxury" items. But that is very similar to how people ate in the 30's, 40's and early 50's.

<comment><USER8> He was selling shoes. Their house has 4 bedrooms, 3 living rooms, 2 offices, a garden, a court, a garage, a basement, a 2 cellars, an attic, and 2 bathrooms.

And yes, not in a big city. But his job paying the house was not in a big city either.

While housing prices in is little town are indeed way lower than in most parts of the country, so are the wages.

I agree for the food though. If you have somebody to do the shopping to several shops and cook, you can get something similar. But today, both spouses work quite often.

Now I'm just back from the US, and the only decent provider of vegetables that match what I'm used to eat in France and group everything was wholefood. $4 for a salad is very expensive to me. Granted I'm not native to the country and only passing by so you have options that are cheaper I don't know about. Still. I never seen that price on a salad anywhere except Japan. And I travel a lot.

<comment><USER10> >$4 for a salad is very expensive to me

i would be extremely happy to eat a meal at $4. these days i end up spending >10$ on a meal, and I am not even living in a big city in US.

<comment><USER8> Not the meal. The vegetable itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is talent not just a form of luck? It doesn't matter how hard you work at your low post game, you'll never learn to be seven feet tall. Those who are of that height are extremely lucky, giving them a huge advantage over other contenders for that NBA center position.

Other forms of athletic talent are less visible than height but I see no reason not to attribute them to luck (genetics, access to nutrition, coaching etc.)

We can apply this reasoning to anything where success can be measured. A great deal of business success comes down to connections which provide access to capital and access to markets. All of these things accrue to the well- connected.

<comment><USER12> All the things you mention are forms of luck, yes. And there's no way to control for them outside of some nightmarish eugenics scenario. It's a fact of life that people are different, and will excel in different facets of their lives to different degrees.

In a free market system there will always be winners, losers, and a lot of us in the middle. That's a result of the system BEING an equal playing field, talent and money are correlated. It'll never be the case that we all go into the workforce on equal footing, because we all start out in different places, with different genetics, and different upbringings. That doesn't mean someone from a poor upbringing can't work hard and raise their market value (thus making more), but it means that not everyone is going to be a millionaire.

<comment><USER13> I think you're going to have to make an argument that there actually is a level playing field. I think most of us here would hotly dispute that.

<comment><USER12> Free markets are as close to egalitarian as is possible with markets. Supply and demand set prices while skill set and productivity set wages. It's not perfect, but it's better than anything else we've tried.

Interested in why you think the playing field isn't level, outside of the "luck" aspects I mentioned earlier (since there's nothing to be done about that, life doesn't care about fairness unfortunately). I'm open to new info :)

<comment><USER13> I think you're going to have to prove that, for one, Free Markets actually do lead to those things, and for two, that our current situation is one that could reasonably be called a Free Market.

"Interested in why you think the playing field isn't level"

I think all one has to do is look at places like the inner city, where poverty is common, and where the opportunities are simply not there. And I feel it is extremely defeatist to say "We can't do anything about unfairness". I believe we absolutely can. We just don't seem to want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Since the talent follows a normal distribution, technically it can be > negative or larger than 1, but for convenience we assume T~[0, 1]

Part of the answer to the original question is in this line. Normal distribution implies outliers - i.e. some are radically competent. In meritocratic conditions, you expect some to be radically successful, therefore creating a huge wealth asymmetry.

I'm not saying we do live in a pure meritocracy, far from it. Only that normal distribution of talent doesn't imply wealth should naturally become normally distributed.

</comment><comment><USER15> Everyone in this thread directly supports inequality through their buying decisions and I'm callin' them out.

Anytime you use Netflix, Google, HackerNews is supporting inequality. Every time you bought a Harry Potter book as a kid you supported inequality. You're giving more money to the winners.

If you want to reduce inequality, then buy books from unpopular authors. Use unpopular OSes like TempleOS instead of giving even more market share to Google/Apple/Microsoft. Drive cars made by less popular manufacturers. Don't read the New York Times, Fox News, or Washington Post - only blogs or magazines with a small subscribership. And don't watch anything Disney.

<comment><USER16> I'm not going to respond to most of your comment, but this suggestion is pretty weird:

 _> Use unpopular OSes like TempleOS instead of giving even more market share to Google/Apple/Microsoft_

...Why? You could also just use Linux or BSD. TempleOS seems like a very odd suggestion for people looking to cut out non-free operating systems cold turkey.

Edit: In case this isn't clear, I'm responding to the commenter's commercialism thesis. I mean free as in beer, not as in speech.

<comment><USER17> The GP is about popularity not freedom.

<comment><USER16> No it isn't, it's clearly about commercialism. The commenter makes specific examples and includes the phrase "buying decisions".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Luck = Skill + Opportunity. That is, you must have the skill set to become successful, but also be in the right place at the right time to apply these skills.

<comment><USER19> Fortunately, you can increase your skill through training, reading, etc. You can increase your opportunity just by trying when you fail. Someone who only applies to a single job is less likely to be employed than someone who keeps on applying until they are hired.

But then that would mean that luck is greatly a matter of how hard you are willing to work and that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion these days.

<comment><USER13> Because it's not. Donald Trump has not worked hard a day in his life; nor have his offspring. Yet they have quite a privileged position.

<comment><USER19> Typically if someone has a lot of money, they or someone worked hard for it at some point. But yes, people do win the lottery so there are people who haven't worked for it. But the fact that there are some people who didn't have to work hard doesn't change anything I said.

America is a great place for people who want opportunities to succeed. It is a horrible place for people who are mainly focused on whether or not anyone else has more than them because the land is full of people taking advantage of those opportunities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _In a meritocratic society, there is positive correlation between talent and success. But how steep should this relationship be? If the talent-success slope is very steep (i.e., a small talent difference causes a large capital gap), you might end up having a wide distribution of wealth (severe economic inequality). On the other hand, if the slope is quite flat (i.e., a big talent difference makes little difference in capital), the society has weak meritocracy, which may disincentivize people from achievements. The right degree of steepness depends on how one defines fairness and how much inequality a society can handle._

This discussion misses one important element of returns to talent: more capital in the hands of more capable people should result in better allocation of resources, and consequently better outcomes for society as a whole. Too little inequality would, according to this view, result in destruction of capital over time, and in consequence impoverish the society.

<comment><USER21> You assume the ability to gain capital has anything to do with the ability to invest well. A quick check of sports stars shows this is very far from the case.

Talent is not universal, being a great Doctor has little to do with being a great painter _or_ investor.

<comment><USER22> > Talent is not universal, being a great Doctor has little to do with being a > great painter or investor.

You might like to think so, but g says otherwise.

<comment><USER21> Correlation != a 1:1 relationship. Top Hollywood actors might do better than the average person _on average,_ but plenty of high income people live in vast amounts of debt.

<comment><USER20> It just has to be better on average, though, for the broader social implication to hold: allocating capital to able people isn't just about rewarding them, it's about what they go on to do with that capital.

<comment><USER21> That would only be relevant if their was absolutely no other way to allocate capital _and_ maximizing ROI was the only relevant metric. Building, a X$ Yat may count to GDP as X$ worth of healthcare, but society does not care about them equally.

What's important is the outputs of society, not the accounting that occurs between effort and consumption.

<comment><USER20> All people engage in consumption, though — less able people as well as more able people. The issue is, when they aren't, what are they doing with that capital? This relates not only to how people run a business but also how they engage with civic projects, charities and institutions like schools and universities.

There are marked differences in styles of consumption. Some of the things the Romans did, for example, are simply too destructive and wasteful for our tastes today.

If you're saying, we can allocate capital not to more or less able people, but in some other way — to institutions or something — well, that's true; but there still will be capital managed by individuals. When talented, constructive people rise to the top of the heap and run laundromats, computer companies, and other businesses, we are ultimately all better off for it, because those services are (a) available and (b) good. But to run such businesses people do need to accumulate capital.

<comment><USER21> My point is there is no reason to use indirect means. If you care about efficient use of capital then add a capital tax of say 1%. Now, people who get a higher ROI accumulate wealth faster rather than those who simply conserve wealth.

When accumulation of wealth is more tightly coupled with the ability to invest rather than the ability to let compound safe investments create wealth you increase efficiency.

Beyond that I don't think capital accumulation needs any incentives. People don't invest more because of changes to the tax code they simply get more money from the same investments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There are plenty of "soft factors" at work in being successful or not. Confidence adds a lot of perceived value to an individual; their ability to work smart instead of just hard; their ability to prove they can do well in the specific context of their job rather than just be generally intelligent but not practical; their ability to make others look good or feel confident in their ability will make them get promotions sooner.

There are obviously lots of practical conditions outside of our control such as local conditions, state of the job market, being willing to relocate etc. There is also the understanding that you need to look better than the other applicants rather than just look good in isolation.

Another major issue that is rarely covered is personality types and the fact that insecurity, paranoia or other physical conditions that are obvious to the interviewer will cause you to look bad, regardless of whether they actually measure your ability to do a job.

And then there's luck!

</comment><comment><USER24> > The new term, wT is the amount of one's paycheck. w represents the > importance of the paycheck. The higher it is, the more pay you get. w is > multiplied by the talent parameter T to implement a meritocratic idea: the > more talented you are, the fatter the paycheck you get.

Perhaps I misunderstand the situation, but it seems like the author is baking meritocracy directly into the model: _if_ you have high talent _then_ you automatically get a higher paycheck. By increasing the paycheck importance or simply reducing the event probability towards 0, this model will always produce a perfect meritocracy.

So on the one hand we have random events that have a chance to double or halve capital, but somehow a persons paycheck is a constant over their life, nobody is ever between jobs, and paycheck is entirely deterministic. I think the author really missed the opportunity to link paychecks to the random events (but paychecks would otherwise persist between events).

<comment><USER25> Perhaps talent in this case refers to ones talent at salary negotiation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> One model I don't see here is "success requiring a certain amount of capitol to obtain". If you don't have the, say, 6 capital to invest in an opportunity, you can't get the rewards for that opportunity. This applies even if you provide debt, since going into debt typically requires having existing assets in excess of the debt amount.

My hypothesis is that the starting capital will impact the distribution of capital more than talent.

Another potential model: Vary the chance to participate in opportunities. Not everyone has equal chance to take advantage of opportunities; someone living in NY will have more opportunities they can leverage than someone living in Iowa (and being able to move to NY is an opportunity in itself).

My hypothesis here is that the chance for being able to take advantage of opportunities will play as big of a role in the final capital distribution as talent.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't even know where to begin to critique this. It entirely leaves out factors like race and gender that are known to have an impact.

I've spent a lot of years trying to understand the details of exactly how my gender is a factor and trying to find solutions to those details. I don't believe it has to be a problem, but we know it currently is a problem, and these cleaned up models seem to never include the idea that if you are female or a person of color or gay etc, you will tend to have "demerits" or be handicapped (in the horse racing sense of carrying an extra burden).

If talent, work and luck were everything, then we shouldn't have such consistent outcomes that certain groups overall do better than others.

</comment><comment><USER28> About a year ago, I asked similar questions about the 80-20 rule and income distributions. It seems that the simple explanation works surprisingly well. Simulate the following system and it matches real world distributions surprisingly well.

r1) Actors have normally distributed abilities r2) Actors are chosen randomly based on current winnings, the more you have won, the more you compete. r3) Winner of competition wins one point from the loser

You can find what I wrote about this at

[http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~arnold/research/80-20/](http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~arnold/research/80-20/)

including the code. It's interesting!

</comment><comment><USER29> "Things worthwhile generally don't just happen. Luck is a fact, but should not be a factor. Good luck is what is left over after intelligence and effort have combined at their best. Negligence or indifference are usually reviewed from an unlucky seat. The law of cause and effect and causality both work the same with inexorable exactitude. Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

</comment><comment><USER30> I'd like to see a model which separates talent into many constants:

* job/income talent

* exploiting luck talent

* avoiding unlucky event talent

* mitigating unlucky event talent

</comment><comment><USER31> If you don't even have the ability to quantitatively differentiate luck and talent, what is the point in developing an economic model completely dependent on those two things?

<comment><USER32> This is a good point. You can't actually measure any of these things, thus you can't prove them. What's the point in debating them then?

<comment><USER31> I disagree. Unprovable things can and often should be a part of a dialogue. I don't know what that has to do with unquantifiable things being left out of quantitative economic models, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Appealing to luck is absolutely unscientific.

<comment><USER10> luck is a loose term used in place of 'probability' eg. probability that the company having an open java developer position at this years career fair seems high because of x,y and z reasons.

eg. i got lucky, they gave me an offer letter right after the interview for a developer position!</comment></comment>


Black Hat 2009: Get an SSL cert valid for any domain using a null character - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2009/07/29/black-hat-2009-breaking-ssl-with-null-characters/

<comment><AUTHOR> The Certificate Authority looks at the domain string starting from the root, and NSS looks at it like a normal string.

The real problem is not just that they both stop at the null character, but that they both _preserve the original input_ instead of only passing along the part before the first null.

</comment><comment><USER2> Earlier today I wrote a post about "security problems that C causes" and neglected to mention the use of null-terminated strings instead of a proper data structure that encapsulates length along with the string.

Well, this is what happens when you assume some sort of special data is valid, when it isn't actually. (\0 can appear in a string, it's a perfectly valid character, so it's not safe to use it to terminate the string. But people do anyway.)

<comment><AUTHOR> While null-terminated strings aren't helping matters, the meat of the problem is much worse:

Effectively, they're using _strcmp_ with _memcpy_ on the same data -- it's just ridiculously stupid.

<comment><USER3> Wasn't it a similar bug that facilitated the first successful software-only Wii cracking attempt?

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually thought about mentioning that...

All software (code+data) on the Wii must be signed, but the code burned into the supervisor chip does a _strcmp_ on the raw binary signature. It's pretty trivial to generate a hash collision when you can force only the first byte to be compared :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bootstrapping an AI-powered travel itinerary planning solution - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@claudian37/a-painless-way-to-plan-your-next-getaway-bb6971e39b28 <comment><AUTHOR> itinease.com</comment>


Media companies fear and photographers love Richard Liebowitz - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/richard-liebowitz-why-media-companies-fear-and-photographers-love-this-guy.html <comment><USER2> This man is a hero. This story tries to take an even tack with him but fails to accurately characterize the actions of the media companies. They should not be excused when "an intern makes a mistake". If they're unable to adequately train their interns then they shouldn't use interns. And if they can't afford well-trained professional editorial workers they should go out of business. I say this as someone who used to work in media and saw media companies blow up out of nowhere on the back of fair use abuse (Bleacher Report, HuffPo).

</comment><comment><USER3> These million dollar companies are worried about paying thousands for a photo to an a freelancer. Meanwhile individuals deal with bankruptcy, prison, and even suicide due to these companies suing them for a song, photo, or video.

I shall play the tiniest violin for their troubles.

<comment><USER4> I don't get the sense the CEOs are that worried. It's counsel that's annoyed, and probably suggested the topic to this writer. Slate, after all, is one of the affected companies.

<comment><USER3> It's also counsel that determines and requests the damages when songs and movies are shared. These lawyers are worried that Leibovitz will file 600 lawsuits but see nothing wrong in filing suits against 1000+ individuals for their clients.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _In conversation and in court documents, attorneys who have tangled with > Liebowitz have vented over what they deem his chronic overvaluation of his > clients' claims, his habit of dodging discovery obligations, his disregard > for the admittedly vague concept of fair use—which, basically, is the > doctrine that makes it OK for journalists and commentators to quote limited > portions of copyrighted works without first asking permission. ("Fair use is > an area that, so far as Richard is concerned, apparently doesn't exist," one > attorney told me.)_

Large media owners also seem to think fair use doesn't exist, and deliberately make it hard for citizens to exercise fair use. It's interesting to see them squrim when the shoe is on the other foot. (and the irony of this post is not lost on me ....)

</comment><comment><USER6> I appreciate the irony that these media companies leverage the cost of litigation in order to avoid paying for photos but, when the cost of litigation is used to extract compensation for their victims, this whole litigation blackmail thing is just evil and out of control!

I can't help but feel the article chose to veer too far in the direction of sympathizing with the serial-thieving companies here. Is the best that could be said for this guy is hat he's an ass "of the media's own making"?

</comment><comment><USER7> High-pressure tactics based on demanding settlements due to the ruinous cost of litigation, threats of even more ruinous statutory damages, and all the other tricks detailed here have been used by media conglomerates against individuals.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

<comment><USER8> Are we talking about the same "media companies" though? While many wouldn't shed a tear for entertainment groups such as the RIAA and other big media companies, the list of targets includes many newspapers and smaller media outfits:

> _He sues media companies of all sizes—including Condé Nast, Hearst, Time > Inc., Univision, Forbes, Barstool Sports, Breitbart News, Business Insider, > Inside Edition, Zagat, Rolling Stone, the Daily Beast, the Daily Caller, the > Daily Dot, the Daily Voice, the Village Voice, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, > Vox Media, Cox Media, Uproxx Media, and, yes, The Slate Group—and in all > seasons._

Even if Liebowitz's current attacks on news media are acceptable, I would worry whether such attacks from him and other lawyers might broaden their scope in the future. As the article mentions, the recent SDNY ruling that websites are liable for embedded content may be but the first expansion: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/federal-judge-says- emb...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/federal-judge-says-embedding- tweet-can-be-copyright-infringement)

<comment><USER7> News organizations have engaged in "copyright trolling" too. Your Google search term for a notorious case is "Righthaven".

<comment><USER9> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tony and Chelsea Northrup describe their experience with suing an Australian firm that used his photo/her image in product packaging:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0)

It was enlightening how stressful it can be chasing these guys down ...

</comment><comment><USER11> Seems easy to avoid, though.

1) Get permission.

or

2) Use public domain images.

Bam. Problem solved.

<comment><USER12> Being first with a story is often what media are after, so getting permission is, I imagine, not usually something they really want to wait for. So yes 2 seems a viable solution or using some sort of subscription for images as described in the article.

<comment><USER13> In the electronic age, stories can be updated after the fact. Run with the images you have permission for, add more later as you obtain more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The bloke deserves a medal

</comment><comment><USER15> So if regular people download music and movies it's "unethical" and "hurts the industry", but if big corporations make profits photographers' work then it's "fair use" ?

It really smells like BS to me.

<comment><USER9> If you think of yourself as primarily a resource to governments, law enforcement and corporations, as they do, then it makes sense.</comment></comment>


Microsoft's Mundie wants a "drivers license for the internet". - <AUTHOR> http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/

<comment><USER2> All I can say. 1984.

<comment><USER3> What do you expect? He _is_ from Microsoft. He may never have used anything other than Windows.</comment></comment>


Dean Kamen Making the 'Segway' into Hybrid Cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449303,00.html <comment><AUTHOR> "I think what Darwin was really saying was: It's not the fittest, not the smartest, not the strongest; it's the ones that can adapt to change. And big industries that have long histories, particularly successful long histories and a lot of ingrained infrastructure become the least adaptable to change."

<comment><USER2> Very similar to the Innovator's Dilemma argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is interesting, if it's truly practical (Kamen's brilliant, but sometimes has an unorthodox view of "practical"). Stirling engines have traditionally been more efficient, but also more expensive(1) and much heavier(2) than competing technologies. The second factor, especially, impacts automotive applications.

(1) [http://www.gulfcoastchp.org/WhatIsCHP/Technologies/Power/Sti...](http://www.gulfcoastchp.org/WhatIsCHP/Technologies/Power/Stirling) (double the $/kw of ICE)

(2) [http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=n...](http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000880000001000466000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes) (even NASA only hopes to develop a 77lb, ~7hp Stirling, not the greatest power to weight ratio).

</comment><comment><USER4> Worst headline today: this is not a segway car with two side-by-side wheels, it is a car with a new (Stirling) engine, from Dean Kamen, whio is the Segways's inventor.

<comment><USER5> Dude ... that went right over your head.

<comment><USER6> He might not be a native speaker.

For the many here who are not, its a word play using this word:

se·gue (sgw, sgw) intr.v. se·gued, se·gue·ing, se·gues 1\. Music To make a transition directly from one section or theme to another. 2\. To move smoothly and unhesitatingly from one state, condition, situation, or element to another: "Daylight segued into dusk"

<comment><USER4> I am a native speaker. "segue" is pronounced like the "segway" scooter? (Wikipedia concurs - it's apparently from the Italian)

That's what I get for reading English at a higher level than it is spoken to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Completely and utterly way off-topic but who else enjoyed watching Fox news the day after the election just to watch in pure joy the 'news anchors' talking about how Obama won?

I don't think I've ever watched so many hours of Fox news with a bigger smile on my face.

\--

Back on topic, I think this current vacation from oil price increases is obviously temporary, and is only delaying the inevitable move to new technologies until the economies around the world fully recover. Expect to see prices rising again fast as soon as economic indicators start improving, which will cause everyone once again to start looking into alternative energy.</comment>


CEOs and 'the Candle Problem' - <AUTHOR> http://www.scilogs.com/a_mad_hemorrhage/ceos-and-the-candle-problem/

<comment><USER2> For those reading this article, there are problem solving methods that will give you a solution to 'the Candle Problem'. I highly recommend the McKinsey Method and reading the book, "The McKinsey Way".</comment>


Mobile Apps Tools/Frameworks - <AUTHOR>

Hello guys,

   For those among you who have developed a mobile app,what tools/framework did you use?
   What frameworks,resources do you recommend for someone who wants to begin developing for mobile?

   Thank you
 <comment><USER2> Checkout Appcelerator Titanium <http://www.appcelerator.com/> ... I took a look at Phonegap first and for whatever reason overlooked Appcelerator...Phonegap is great but has a lot of limitations once you want to get beyond the basics.

Appcelerator's "kitchen sink" demo is an awesome demonstration of what you can do with it, and contains some great code to get started. <https://github.com/appcelerator/KitchenSink>

</comment><comment><USER3> I have not developed a mobile application yet, but services like www.phonegap.com look pretty neat for at least rapid prototyping and getting an app in the hands of customers quickly.</comment>