How to overcome "years of experience" requirements when applying for jobs - <AUTHOR> http://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/1478/906 <comment><USER3> I think the op's point was completely ignored: _Different people progress at different rates._ When you're in high school, you have roughly the same amount of schooling experience as your peers. That doesn't change the fact that you may be taking advanced classes while they take remedial ones.

It's easy to accuse the op of arrogance. And who knows, maybe he is arrogant. But in the end, that's just an ad hominem and is insufficient for dismissing his point, which I believe is a legitimate one.

<comment><USER4> I think the OP missed the bigger point, which is that _knowledge_ comes at various speeds based on an individuals ability to absorb learning, but _experience_ comes from hours invested and the variety of situations experienced.

The OP _seems_ to have conflated the concept that someone asking for a certain number of years of experience are looking for a particular subject matter knowledge level, when they are really looking for someone who has experienced more variations.

When people talk about "What is the value of a college degree? I can already write code with the best of them!" they conflate what they know as equivalent with experiencing different things. Good college programs go through a lot of different scenarios quickly and that is how they substitute for some experience. But any trades person will tell you that learning the trade is both knowledge and experience. The former tells you _how_ the latter tells _why_ and with luck gives you the wisdom to choose the best "how" out of a number of choices.

<comment><USER5> Your argument is unconvincing.

It takes certain skills to be an effective "intermediate software developer." (Here I use the word _skills_ very generically, so in particular it includes the things that you call _experience._ ) If a hiring manager has found that many people have those skills after 3 years of work, it is probably true that some people have those skills after 2 years of work.

Therefore: the OP might have the skills to be effective at the job he wants. So for God's sake can somebody just give a good-faith answer to his question? The amount of condescension he's getting is ridiculous.

<comment><USER6> The real answer, which is alluded to in your post, is that the years requirement is simply a mechanism to reduce risk and blame for the person hiring you. There are a few things to consider in these situations:

1\. He is already being interviewed despite satisfying the years experience requirement. This means they are willing to ignore that requirement. (or I misread this and he never made it to an interview)

2\. All new hires have a ramp up period. This costs money and a failed hire can be costly.

3\. A hiring manager (or whoever has the final say) is the person who will ultimately take the blame for any failed hire.

Considering the above, there is really only one question that needs to be satisfied in the mind of the employer for any "inexperienced" candidate to get a job:

\- Is the risk of hiring this person lower than that of all other candidates?

When you try to answer that question, you get a clear understanding of where the years requirement fits in and how it effects the go/no go decision. So let's see what risk factors are normally vetted out during interviews:

1\. Skills - Can he do the job? (the well roundedness part of the answer falls here) Let's make the assumption that he can so the answer is yes.

2\. Personality - Does he fit in with the team? (conflict resolution and all that other stuff in the SO post falls into here) Let's make another assumption that he can so the answer is yes.

3\. Will he flake out? - This is where experience factors in heavily. Evaluating someone with very little work history makes this impossibly hard to get correct. With longer resumes, it is easier to have high confidence in making this judgement. 3 years is generally enough time to see if the candidate either stayed with one company for a long time or stayed at 2 companies for a long time. This is usually a good indicator that the candidate worked out well and can be trusted to contribute in the long run. This is also why jumping too many jobs in a short period of time (or over a career) is generally considered a bad thing. It makes you a very high risk hire.

When you are asked personal questions (where do you see yourself in 5 years, what do you do in your free time, etc), this is where you are given a chance to alleviate their concerns. Questions about prior work experience are also used to vet out a candidate's flakiness. Even someone with tons of experience can fail this part of the interview in which case they would also get rejected. Low experience candidates are simply starting with a -10 buff.

So to answer the OP's questions:

1\. How can I overcome the assumption that I do not have the skills required because I do not have the "right" number of years of experience?

He must minimize the "Will he flake out factor?" Either ace the "flake out" part of the interview OR show yourself to be so outstanding with regards to skills and/or personality that they ignore your potential flakiness. The best way to do this is via skills. You can't be just better than your peers. You must be better than your seniors. Either show this through outside work (personal projects, open source contributions, etc.) or by impressing them with your knowledge. Based on what the OP wrote, he seems capable but doesn't STAND OUT stand out. The personality route is also viable but that is much harder to swing unless you know people in the company already.

In the case he didn't even make it to an interview, then he must rely solely on displaying his skills via his resume. Outside projects and open source contributions with a personal website (or a link to code repos) is the best way to accomplish this. If his resume looks generic, then it's no wonder he didn't make it to an interview.

2\. Are skills directly proportional to years of experience?

No. I know some people who have been programming since they were 10. Coming out of college, they clearly have outstanding skills but zero experience. But as stated above, this is not the real reason why he was rejected (he should actually ask for feedback assuming he made it to an interview round).

<comment><USER7> Do hirers give feedback? When I was suddenly dropped from dropbox's interview process, and asked for feedback, I didn't get a response until my friend working there went and bugged HR, and then the response that did get sent was "we have no comment".

<comment><USER6> Sometimes. I interviewed a LOT out of college and often made it to 2nd and 3rd rounds. Every time I got rejected, I would pop an email to the HR rep and ask for feedback along with something like "thanks for the opportunity." Maybe 1 in 10 would respond and some 1 in 15 would actually give me feedback on how I did. So while it's a fairly low chance shot in the dark, you don't have much to lose by asking. Just be polite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As an employer, I give you this advice: Just apply.

We make exceptions for smart or motivated people all the time. After all, your resume's gonna be viewed by a human who'll give it a subjective assessment. If by chance the company you're applying to is so rigid in their standards that they can only make decision based on objective measures, it's probably not a company that you want to be at.

<comment><USER9> I fully agree, though I will caveat that many companies, mostly larger ones, have the vast majority of resumes funnelled through HR. HR may be much more inclined to just toss a resume that doesn't check every box that was listed as a "requirement" for the job than a hiring manager actually would. Of course, that may fall under the "it's probably not a company that you want" category, but it is well worth noting.

<comment><USER10> Which is why you don't go through HR. Every piece of hiring advice from a reputable source will tell you to find out who the person is making the decision and go to them rather than firing a resume to email@example.com. As patio11 said, "resumes are an institution created to mean that no one has to read resumes." [1]

[1]: <http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/>

<comment><USER11> I've had experience in the past being referred for a job by someone on the inside, and still getting turned away by HR for undisclosed reasons. In some companies, even if someone wants to hire you specifically, HR still gets in the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Years of experience is a farce typically made up by HR folks that have zero understanding or clue of the detail's they're hiring for.

Case in point for people looking for "10+ years of rails experience."

Secret tip:

1) Apply anyways. I got jobs just by showing interest and a willingness to learn anything.

2) Build cool, publicly usable and visible projects. Show your versatility to build and ship different kinds of projects

3) Show a knack for picking up languages and technologies quickly and in your own time. This is something you can't fake until you make it. Maybe consider using the technologies you're applying to use in a job.

4) For the really crazy and if it fits your situation, say you're wanting a good fit for everyone and have a few days or week you can chip towards coming in, hanging out and learning more about the company and job to see if it's a good fit for everyone, unpaid. Hiring is one of those decisions that people don't want to hire someone and make a mistake so they'll go for the safe candidate vs the best.

If they feel like keeping you on and paying you for the week, it's up to them. It's better to date before getting married anyways, right? The more you can act like management the greater chance you'll catch their attention and stand out.

The wrong kind of place might not take notice. The right kind will notice and like how you roll.

<comment><USER13> I guess that depends on what a year of experience unit is. 2000 hours? If you used Rails full time in your day job since it was released and built a Rails- based startup on the side, it could be possible to have 10+ unit-years of experience with it.

But yeah, it's a poor measure, plain and simple. Someone who tinkers with Rails one week out of each year could soon claim eight years of experience, even though they'll have no experience compared to someone who has used it in their full-time job over the same number of years.

<comment><USER12> You have a fair point and cool insight that I'm going to keep in mind :)

But does the average non-tech HR person recruiting have any awareness of this? I think they'd communicate it if they knew better, it would only make them better at their jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The top rated answer though is pretty priceless. The easy way to over come the experience requirement, is to put in the time. But the relevant response is that when you don't know what you don't know, you're not nearly as effective as you think you are. I remember being so depressed at Intel one day when I figured out I was tons smarter than this senior engineer I was working with but I didn't have a shot at his job until I had more experience.

I advise folks, don't rush, breathe, look around you, learn. And then apply all that. But recognize its very hard.

Generally the advice here to just apply is solid too. If the skill set matches I and any other hiring manager will give you a look. And experience comes even when it isn't 'paid' so doing projects in your spare time is also a great tool.

<comment><USER14> Was your story supposed to conclude with "then I got his job and realized how hard it was" or were you really smarter?

<comment><USER4> Lol, no I didn't stay long enough at Intel to qualify. They had hired me as a hardware guy, but between board bring up from a hardware perspective and a software perspective I found I generally liked the software work better and so moved on to Sun Microsystems.

I _did_ however come to appreciate that even though things are "obviously easy" on the surface there could be mitigating factors which made that not true. My favorite example was 'give all the source code rights and IP to RPC/XDR to a standards body so that they can standardize it' (which I tried to do with the IETF in Amsterdam in 1993. Easy right? No so much. Not when other people don't want that to happen. So not a technical issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Something I don't think everyone considers when they don't get a job is that probably somebody else _did_ get the job.

Maybe you are very skilled but only have 2 years experience and someone else that applied is just as skilled and has 5+ years experience. Maybe they interviewed that guy first and liked him and didn't feel the need to interview anyone else.

Maybe you are very skilled AND have 5+ years experience, but the hiring manager/HR had a stack of 10 (20? 100?) resume's of equally qualified applicants and you randomly ended up on the bottom of that stack (You have a 50% change of ending up in the bottom half) And they gave interviews to the first 5 (or 10 or 50) and ended up really liking one of those guys.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's funny.

Younger people on HN complain that it's impossible to get hired because they don't have experience.

Older people on HN complain that it's impossible to get hired because they aren't a fresh out of college 20 something who has time to code 24/7.

<comment><USER17> It is very possible for both those statements to be true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I remember when I thought I was a badass programmer. Now, after almost two decades of it, I realize how little I know. IMHO, humility is the best sign of experience. That said, asking for a hard number (like 5 years of experience) is no guaranteed filter, but it probably will get you way better application results than putting the threshold at 2 years.

<comment><USER19> I fully agree. For most of my 3 decades in programming, I've considered myself a badass programmer, but in retrospect, there are always glaring mistakes that were not evident to me at the time.

One concrete benefit of requiring N years of experience, with N greater than 2, is that one of the major career learning experiences is to deal with one's own code in "maintenance mode", and you can only experience that if you have a number of years of distance from when you originally wrote the code.

Of course, requiring N years of experience is no guarantee that the candidate has dealt with this situation, as there are people who (consciously or not) structure their careers to avoid ever retreading their own code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What the employer _means_ in the context is that they want someone with practical experience with the tech; not just book-learning. All you have to do is display the experience that you have, or get some if you don't have it.

"We covered this in class" is generally useless, given the gulf between theory and practice. "I have app X in the app store" is priceless. Github profile, history of helpful posts in a related forum, stack overflow reputation - <USER2> of these can show that you've done the work before.

The experience requirement is also used to weed out applicants who intend to read one book on the tech/language and learn the rest on the job. In some positions that is appropriate, in others it is not.

<comment><USER21> >The experience requirement is also used to weed out applicants who intend to read one book on the tech/language and learn the rest on the job. In some positions that is appropriate, in others it is not.

I'd go one further and say that almost every position is appropriate for this, it all comes down to the person's willingness and ability to learn quickly. Given the mindset of an average HR drone though, you almost have to fake it. I've found that being a quick learner doesn't mean much of anything when it comes to getting through the process, as it's not something you can readily prove.

<comment><USER20> I'll stand by my statement - smarts and experience are two different things, and some jobs require both.

When I need an iPhone or C++ expert, and Android guy who read a book or two will not fit the bill. I need someone with the fine-detail, nitty-gritty knowledge that only comes from working with a platform over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Years of Experience" along with "Degree" are objective requirements that can simplify hiring. Some companies will be hard and fast about them, others will be more flexible.

But to note, if you want to claim that you have outstanding reasons why lack of years, or a degree, or a certification, or whatever ought to be disregarded, figure out why that is, and emphasize it.

If you have an active GitHub profile, an interesting blog, a self-published book - a great many recruiters will overlook their objective benchmarks.

Focus on your strengths, shore them up, and advertise them. Time wasted complaining that some recruiters are inflexible is not only pointless; it takes time away that you could be using to do something positive.

</comment><comment><USER23> In my experience, companies that use years of experience as a candidate filter are not companies you would want to work for. Number of years of experience is easy to determine, but pretty much useless in determining someone's skill. What it really shows is that the people in charge of hiring are either lazy or incompetent. Neither speak well to the quality of people going into the company, so once again, why would you want to work for them?

<comment><USER24> >Number of years of experience is easy to determine

Only if defined in a naive way (i.e. ignore personal projects, work experience during middle school/high school/college, have some arbitrary way of interpreting what it means to have experience in a particular language.)

<comment><USER23> You can certainly make the number more or less meaningful by including a comparison against what the individual accomplished over that period. Regardless, the question was an individual's number wasn't high enough.

<comment><USER25> EITHER you made something great OR you have nothing to show and then it's really personal

In the end, once you have something to show, noone cares about your resumé and they all want you on board because you have shown that you can deliver and are a low-risk, high-return investment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Employers use "years of experience" as a concise way of indicating roughly how much skill they're expecting, as much as anything else. If you think you have that much experience, apply anyway and let your CV speak for itself.

If the company is the kind that filters out qualified candidates on a technicality, well, hopefully you didn't really want to want to have your time wasted by a callback from that company anyway. I'd still suggest not directly mentioning it anywhere, though, just in case it prompts an HR person to skip your application without looking any closer. It also communicates a lack of confidence. Again, your CV should be able to speak for itself.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have used "years of experience" as a shorthand for "we are looking for someone with mature judgement; who has been in many different situations and worked through them; who will stop and consider consequences before committing to risky ventures; who will not panic when faced with a new problem; who is likely to have learned from experience in a way which will benefit our company."

Perhaps I should spell that out in future, though.

</comment><comment><USER28> This will be buried but I'll throw it out there anyway.

In the UK it's actually illegal to specify a minimum number of years of experience. The issue is that no-one enforces the rule unless someone kicks up a stink. In the UK, if you are rejected for a position implicitly because you didn't have the minimum number of years of experience you can claim compensation through the employment tribunal on the grounds of age discrimination.

UK law is black and white about the issue and I'm personally sick and tired of seeing employers and recruiters blatantly and ignorantly flouting the law.

<comment><USER29> Not doubting you in any way, but do you have a reference for that? Is it part of the Equality Act 2010?

I'd like to be able to say this with some authority (without it sounding like "this guy on the internet told me").

<comment><USER28> Sure. Some citations:

[1] [http://www.xperthr.co.uk/faqs/topics/6,62/age- discrimination...](http://www.xperthr.co.uk/faqs/topics/6,62/age- discrimination.aspx?articleid=69746&mode=open#69746)

[2] <http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1046>

[3] [http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=10...](http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1073792251&r.i=1073792193&r.l1=1073858787&r.l2=1073877851&r.l3=1074003268&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOURCES)

[4] [http://www.rightsatwork.co.uk/employment-law/age- discriminat...](http://www.rightsatwork.co.uk/employment-law/age- discrimination.html)

[5] Anecdotal: [http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/03/26/45050/look...](http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/03/26/45050/looking- for-experienced-staff-could-lead-to-age-discrimination-tribunal.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I recall vividly how two years after Java first came out, many would-be- employers in the banking sector started advertising heavily for 'Java programmers with minimum of five years experience'.

</comment><comment><USER31> Years of experience is an easy way for a company to justify not hiring you. If you have the skills, you likely need to improve your skill at effectively educating people of your ability.

I recently went through something like this. I wound up getting the job, but only after my recruiter pulled a few strings. As an applicant, you can't do that so it's best you improve your communication so that after that first meeting they see your spark.

</comment><comment><USER32> Most of the answers here and on stack exchange clearly show that the person answering has never been (or lots of time has passed since) in this position. I have been in this situation lots of times. Not only I didn't have the years, by I also didn't have the education. And have learned how to "beat" the system:

1\. Be really good. You can't fake that. 2\. In your resume, show your real skills and interests. Write details. Lots of details. But only details that are of interest to the current position. 3\. Don't have a "generic" CV. Write one specifically for every other position you are applying to. 4\. Do not be shy and provide references to hobby projects, freelance work and your ambitions (and also dreams). 5\. Be humble. Never make comparisons with anyone. Just talk about yourself.

I have been in a hiring position lately, and I can see why this succeeded with me. Most of the candidates send shitty CVs. One can't judge them from the CV. For such candidates you can only guess from the years of experience. Don't be that guy. If you send me a CV that shows passion, knowledge, culture and determination, I won't look at the years of experience at all.

</comment><comment><USER33> The original StackExchange thread is an interesting read. For the job applicant (any job applicant), the problem is always how to make an affirmative case that an employer ought to offer the job to you and not to someone else. The commenters on StackExchange and here on HN are mostly commenting from that perspective, that the job applicant has to figure out how to excel over other job applicants in making a strong case for being hired.

Some comments here are about the issue of how companies should hire in the general case. Because that is a frequently asked question here on HN, and because that has been the subject of much research, I'll recycle some electrons here to provide a FAQ on the general issue. The review article "The Validity and Utility of Selection Models in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings"

[http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...](http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf)

sums up, current to 1998, much of the HUGE peer-reviewed professional literature on the industrial and organizational psychology devoted to business hiring practices. There are many kinds of hiring screens, such as resume reviews for job experience, telephone interviews, in-person interviews, checks for academic credentials, and so on. There is much published study research on how job applicants perform after they are hired in a wide variety of occupations.

The overall summary of the industrial psychology research in reliable secondary sources is that two kinds of job screening procedures work reasonably well (but only about at the 0.5 level, standing alone). One is a general cognitive ability test (an IQ-like test, such as the Wonderlic personnel screening test). Another is a work-sample test, where the applicant does an actual task or group of tasks like what the applicant will do on the job if hired. Each of these kinds of tests has about the same validity in screening applicants for jobs, with the general cognitive ability test better predicting success for applicants who will be trained into a new job. Neither is perfect (both miss some good performers on the job, and select some bad performers on the job), but both are better than anything else that has been tested in rigorous research, across a wide variety of occupations. So if you are hiring for your company, it's a good idea to think about how to build a work-sample test into all of your hiring processes.

For legal reasons in the United States (the same consideration does not apply in other countries), it is difficult to give job applicants a straight-up IQ test (as was commonplace in my parents' generation) as a routine part of a hiring process. The Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971) case in the United States Supreme Court

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196978&q=Griggs+Duke+Power&hl=en&as_sdt=2,24)

held that cognitive ability tests used in hiring that could have a "disparate impact" on applicants of some protected classes must "bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used." In other words, a company that wants to use a test like the Wonderlic, or like the SAT, or like the current WAIS or Stanford-Binet IQ tests, in a hiring process had best conduct a specific validation study of the test related to performance on the job in question. Some companies do the validation study, and use IQ-like tests in hiring. Other companies use IQ-like tests in hiring and hope that no one sues (which is not what I would advise any company). Note that a brain-teaser-type test used in a hiring process might be illegal if it can be shown to have disparate impact on some job applicants and is not supported by a validation study demonstrating that the test is related to successful performance on the job. Companies outside the United States are regulated by different laws.

<comment><USER34> I am still skeptical about the IQ tests and job-skill tests. They both seem to look at things at a very narrow timeframe. One could potentially have a high IQ and be great at a specific task, but it seems to say very little how this person is going to perform in future tasks - i.e. a brilliant mind, facing a challenging job skill task, might become highly bored or sloppy when settling in the day-to-day work frame. But I guess statistics and outliners have one way or another a problematic relationship.

<comment><USER35> I agree with you, but you can see that this test only had a moderate correlation with successful hiring. In the same way that screening for free- throw percentage doesn't provide the best catch-all way of hiring basketball players, an IQ test isn't going to be a perfect (or even nearly perfect!) way of hiring employees. The point was that it is one of the best ways we currently know how.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It does make sense though that companies might be looking for someone who has developed a sense of judgment over the years. Similar to how fathers (responsible ones) become less naive on decision-making as the family's dependency on him grow which is why we turn to him (or our mothers) for advise. Because they may be less skilled or knowledgable than us, but they've been around long enough to know how to react to difficult problems.

I think that is the most important aspect in achieving your goals in a company. You need effective decision making skills on top of your technical abilities.

</comment><comment><USER37> I think the answer is you don't. People are really stupid creatures who prefer to hire not based on what's best but what they feel comfortable with. This results in 95%+ of people being hired not for what is best for them but of circumstance and of well, luck.

Think about it. How many well qualified resumes out there were discarded because the hiring manager was angry their football team lost yesterday? How many were lost during the office party? Probably more then we want to know.

</comment><comment><USER38> One of the respondents makes the point that a company can loose a lot by hiring a bad candidate, but "false negative cost a company close to nothing."

While there is truth to this, I would say it is _less_ true when there is a labor shortage. By not hiring a good candidate when they have the chance, a company looses the revenue that candidate might have helped them earn while they spend time looking for a surer bet.

</comment><comment><USER39> When you come to talk about your experience, just say that although you've found the longer you have been a programmer, the harder it's been to avoid picking up bad habits and wasting time on pointless fads, you feel you are so far on top of the situation and your current weight of experience should not pose a serious problem for your prospective employers.

</comment><comment><USER40> I just love when job ads require 2-3 years work experience, but also have a requirements list so long that would take 10+ years of dedication in 7 completely different, or contradictory, disciplines to qualify for the position.

Now Hiring: Visual Studio/.NET + Ruby on Rails developers with Oracle DBA and jQuery UI experience, XSL and Adobe Illustrator experience a plus

<comment><USER25> I'd say it depends. I could easily say sysadmin, Xen virt, SQL server, postgreSQL, jQ, Illustrator, python, java, html5/css3, extensive hardware understanding, infrastructure design and I've been working for 5 years or something... The difference is it's my passion and I was in hardware and computers way before it became my job.

What in my opinion doesn't match with those offers is their part of the bargain - they want a super motivated multitool expert . for peanuts ...

By the way. you have to realize that's all resumé warfare, they think you're going to exaggerate and they hope at best that you can code .Net, have touched RoR twice, used Toad for Oracle three times and had to implement a very small web frontend for basic purposes - and maybe that you had to design birthday cards in Illustrator.

Seems more likely with 2-3 years experience, doesn't it ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> You have to accept when things are out of your control. You cannot reliably get around job requirements. The best you can do is apply and make your case either on the application or your resume. It's probably better to work your way up in jobs requiring less experience than it is to fight the system as hiring managers have no reason to put their faith in you yet and most likely won't be easily swayed to let you slide on requirements when they believe skill and years experience are correlated.

That said, I have a little experience getting around requirements. I was recently offered a job and havent completed my college degree nor have I worked anywhere that gave me relevant experience (sort of). About two years ago I decided I would ignore the rules and simply start my own company sans degree or work experience. I was a self taught developer with nothing but fast food jobs to fill my resume with. I worked my ass off for two years for peanuts while building a portfolio and gaining experience. I took every opportunity that came my way including accepting a position on the board of directors of a charity and working under contract for a prestigious health education organization on a large publicly funded project. When I finally started applying for jobs I had built up a great looking resume in a non- traditional way and was able to get hired at my number one choice of all the paces I interviewed at. For all the interviews I did get, there were orders of magnitude more that I didn't and I didn't exactly meet the requirements for any of the jobs on paper but my own self-made experience allowed me to get a job despite that.

Now, my point is that you can overcome any requirements including years of experience by simply being good at what you do but you can't expect any employer to see that no matter how obvious it is as some people don't have the ability to see when it's appropriate to draw outside the lines so to speak and go strictly by the book. I'd submit that it's their loss and if you really are more skilled, the companies that recognize that are the ones you'll want to work for anyway and the ones who don't are most likely not a good fit for you to begin with.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Years of experience" is a BS requirement from HR. You need to figure how how to convey to the _hiring manager_ that you understand the work/problem and that you know how to do/solve it in a way that will suit them.

Read _Ask The Headhunter_. Really. Best job-hunting resource ever.</comment>


Murder or Self-Defense If Officer Is Killed in Raid? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/100000004993805.mobile.html <comment><USER2> <One officer, according to the transcript, explained that the "protocol on high-risk search warrants is no-knock — it's for officer safety.">

But _that 's not what no-knock warrants are FOR._

The only legal reason that the no-knock warrant was considered allowable under the 4th Amendment was for cases where _evidence was at risk of immediate destruction_ upon announcement of search by the officers; for example, small amounts of drugs that could be flushed or burned, or bookmaking operations with paper records subject to immediate destruction by fire or solvent.

They print the warrant request in the Guy case. It has _absolutely no mention_ of any evidence at risk of immediate destruction.

</comment><comment><USER3> FWIW, this story is the follow up to a story that was discussed recently [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13902864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13902864)

</comment><comment><USER4> Self-defense if it's no-knock in SWAT gear. Murder if they identify themselves, give warning covering all exits, and then execute the raid.</comment>


Positronic Net library for Android in Scala - <AUTHOR> http://bostinnovation.com/2011/07/27/positronic-net-android-scala/

<comment><USER2> "Positronic Net is an attempt to reduce the amount of boilerplate coding required for Android programming to just connect framework components together."

Sounds like exactly what I've been waiting for. Definitely time to learn Scala.

<comment><USER3> There's actually more than one such library; just about a week and half ago I announced my own effort:

Announcement: [http://www.deepbluelambda.org/programs/baitha/announcing- bai...](http://www.deepbluelambda.org/programs/baitha/announcing-baitha--the- scala-android-toolkit) GitHub: <https://github.com/sattvik/baitha>

The good news about these two libraries is that there is relatively little overlap, so it'd be great to get the best of both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Author here. It's still early days for this project, but I'd love to see people trying it out!</comment>


Startup feedback: Covid-19 Onboarding App - <AUTHOR> https://www.gneschatbot.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Looking for feedback on my website design and also whether any managers in the community see value in the idea.</comment>


What Does Technology Want? - <AUTHOR> http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/nov/16/idea-time-come/

<comment><USER2> technology is to humans as humans are to apes. Neural networks, the internet, nano-technology, robotics, etc. This is the next level.

<comment><USER3> I imagine one day technology will accelerate in intelligence so far ahead of humanity that it will simply escape out of our laboratory into the universe with the final message to humans: "Thanks, and good luck".</comment></comment>


WebUSB API - <AUTHOR> https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/03/access-usb-devices-on-the-web <comment><USER2> Interesting, but what practical uses does this have, besides for authenticator hardware (like two-factor "usb sticks" etc) ?</comment>


A minimalist concatenative, homoiconic, panmorphic language - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sparist/Om <comment><USER2> Quite interesting (I was into esoteric programming about 2 or 3 years ago). Have three questions:

\- Is there any standard library (for common input/output/math etc)? Haven't found how to do 2 + 2 in Om.

\- Is there any way to include other Om files as subprograms?

\- Are there any alternative implementations present/planned? (for instance, JS/Ruby/Python ports)

<comment><USER3> > Is there any standard library (for common input/output/math etc)? Haven't > found how to do 2 + 2 in Om.

"...requiring the addition of many operations (such as basic number and file operations) and optimizations before it can be considered useful for any real- world purpose".

<comment><USER2> And since the latest commit was on 22 Dec 2014, the project seems to be frozen. Sad but true.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why did you start your startup? - <AUTHOR>

I though of making this a poll, but then I realized that I couldn't possibly cover all the conceivable answers, so I'm leaving it open-ended.<p>So, why did you start your startup? Was it for money, fame, freedom, by accident, for adventure, something else? I'm curious to hear any details you might want to share. Thanks! <comment><USER2> I am not sure. I had this idea that kept coming back and back to my mind, and I would evolve it, elaborate more and more - although I have lots of ideas all the time, this one was the more persistent. Then, one day, as I don't have much attachment to my money, I decided to invest in it, outsource the development and put it in practice. Then I became more and more fascinated by the way of doing business of startups (lean, customer development, all that). So it become a fascinating path of intelectual discovery.

So, in a sense, it would be "for adventure", the learning is incredible, even with failure on this field, would be a essential step I had to had if I come back to my original field of work (non-profit, social impact, social business, etc).

Sure, I dream about fame and money, but I dream about being a great soccer player. These dreams are a way to fantasize the consequences of what I am doing, no the reason behind it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if this what we have is a startup by definition, but I do it because I love my profession and want to provide consulting services that add value to our clients. I know it sounds too artificial but it really is so. People ask me, how can I find passion in something that is so boring (compliance, risk, governance, standards) - well I really can, I've always enjoyed it and I love to see our systems and processes work and release the regulatory burden from our clients' businesses. I simply love what we do. In short: to do what I love to do.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have always been fascinated in affecting the masses in a positive way. From there it took years to mold the concept before a small team and I took the plunge.

A year later, we realized it didn't affect the masses in the way we would have hoped.

My answer on "Why did you END your startup" would probably be much more insightful and informative. I think I'll throw that question up myself!

</comment><comment><USER5> The issue was driving me and my friends crazy. I figured I could solve it!</comment>


Apple sends iPhones into 'Coma Mode' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/17/iphone_update_problems/

<comment><USER2> This happens to me. Usually after putting to sleep. It just doesn't wake up for a few minutes, sometimes. Very annoying. Gotta admit it's an amazing product otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER3> I guess you can't do the normal phone troubleshoot and remove battery for 30 seconds.

Idk about apple and phones anymore after the last year I am pretty glad I never bought an iphone because at least java based phones are pretty versatile without imposed restrictions.

<comment><USER4> The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is skewed by the vocal minority of people that have had problems with a product. I have had my iPhone for about a 1.5 years and it has worked spittingly. I also use it as a development device so I would imagine that if the garbage collector was inefficient/didn't work at all that problems would rear their ugly head on a dev device.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I have had my iPhone for about a 1.5 years and it has worked spittingly.

The article is about the latest firmware (3.1) which came out two weeks ago.

<comment><USER4> True, but I was talking less about the firmware and more about the anecdotal evidence skewing opinion of some product. But here is another anecdote for the world; My iPhone works well even with this latest update.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see. Anyway, I posted this just to warn people about some possible issues with this update.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm looking forward to a breakdown of why this is happening; given modern coding practices from the people also responsible for OS X, freezing the whole [pre-emptively multitasking] iPhone OS—without even being able to get off an error screen or automatically reset—should be quite a feat. Doing it at regular intervals in the default shipping configuration should be even harder.

Does anyone know how deep the freezing goes? (e.g. has someone who has their phone jailbroken tried to SSH in while it's frozen?)

</comment><comment><USER6> And I though "I'll read some Hacker News while my phone is upgrading..." Good thing I was able to stop the upgrade (just at the backing up stage). It is worth noting that I've been having voicemail problems and receiving calls problem with 3.0.1 for the past week. I was upgrading in hopes that it would fix some of these issues!

<comment><USER7> I don't think those are on the list of fixes in 3.1; sounds like a carrier issue. Try removing and reinserting the SIM while the iPhone is on.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the support forum thread about the issue:

[http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2151766...](http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2151766&tstart=0)

Better skip this firmware update.

</comment><comment><USER8> I had my phone lock up today frozen on the shutdown screen and it stayed that way for twenty minutes or so. If you hold down the hold button and main button for awhile, it will eventually hard reset.

<comment><USER9> Happened to me too today after I upgraded. Super annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This has been the most frustrating bug. I have missed several big client calls because of this update. How could test not find this... epic Fail for Apple. I really am ready to switch over to the Android. Please someone give me a reason not to leave.

<comment><USER9> uhm... AT&T? Oh, wait, uh....

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> good thing I still run 3.0.1 - I'll skip 3.1, thanks for the article post</comment>


Markets at Burning Man - <AUTHOR> http://transcapitalist.squarespace.com/transcapitalist/2010/9/13/markets-at-burning-man.html <comment><USER2> As a 5-time burner, I've always enjoyed the contrast between the orgy of purchasing that precedes arrival to the playa, and the commerce-celibate environment on the playa.

The fun starts at the costume shops of Haight street -- with BRC-themed displays for weeks before, and ever-more -frantic shoppers leading up to event kickoff (and even midweek for later arrivers). The CruiseAmerica RV rental place near Oakland Airport seems to be nonstop burners the kickoff weekend. (They probably bring in extra vehicles from around the country to meet the demand.)

As you snake up I-80, _every_ highwayside REI, Target, and Wal-Mart between SF and Reno has evidence of burner purchasing. Wal-Marts have special front-of- store presentations of exactly the camper/raver/cycling/desert supplies burners need. And plenty of Home Depots, from SF to Reno, are filled with people buying building and art supplies.

And then: you reach the 'oasis' of no commerce at Black Rock. The contrast is beautiful; the experiment in intentional and temporary community is perception-altering, with lessons for the rest of the world.

But if you fail to notice that it's the wealth and specialization of a giant, competitive, cash-seeking economy that made it all possible, you're blind to the whole picture. Barter economies never invent EL wire and computer- controlled LED displays, among other things.

<comment><AUTHOR> great points. i was also startled by the sheer consumption/destruction that is Burning Man, especially in terms of fuel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The line break between "Blow" and "Pop" made me think that this article was going in a totally different direction.

<comment><USER4> Whoever is downvoting you clearly didn't read the article. That was hilarious!

> My new friend then "gifted" this young girl a $300 ticket. She jumped with > joy, we arrived at the Wal-Mart, and she thanked us both for the ride, > jumped out, and gave us each a Blow

Pop

<comment><USER5> I read it on both my blackberry and ubuntu/firefox with adblockplus. I saw no break other than a simple space between them.

<comment><USER6> Not sure why people are downvoting him either. On my OS X Chrome, "Blow" is the beginning of a line, not the end of one. Rendering differences browsers make strategic linebreaks hard.

It's a shame, because that would have made the article much more fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This post bothered me probably because going to Burning Man reinforced the side of me that wouldn't demand a free meal because of poor service.

Burning Man (at least for me) was a place where you would go with a big crazy project that you could never hope to accomplish. But somehow "the playa would provide" and people would come help you complete it. And "gifting" isn't about cheap trinkets or bartering. It's about giving your time and skills to people that could use it. I've helped repair an engine, build structures, painted a boat, clean up trash, and more. People have fed me, taken care of me while dehydrated, given me rides, bought my ticket, etc.

In some ways, it's helped me be more adventurous with creating a business. Sometimes you need to take that leap of faith that resources will show up.

I came back the first time and literally cried at seeing all of the trash barrels overflowing in my home town on garbage day. (EDIT: I live 2500 miles away.) I also spent months researching all sorts of things I was excited by as a boy. Lots of people go to Burning Man to "rage" and take lots of drugs and go wild. But there are lots of others that create things and share them with people that create things too.

<comment><USER8> Couldn't agree more. The day before I left I felt stupid for leaving with a start up no where near launch. Got in touch with my VC from the playa (camps with wifi rock!), his words were "Burn On!". Met some people who could be key on the playa, came back and all sorts of opportunities are springing up. Definitely agree with you on the leap of faith that resources will show up. Maybe it's just that we're more resourceful and willing to interact and take a chance on others?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> To some extent it's important to remember that Burners tend to be richer on average and on vacation (it's a little like a university campus that way, it's just more priviledged than average).

I think the real reason it works so well, is there are huge numbers of people who go there because they have an insatiable desire to build things, (both physically and in terms of a community) and making your neighbour's burn better makes yours better.

<comment><USER10> This resonates well with my experience. One of the first-time burners in our group said that the most shocking thing to her was that "everybody is doing exactly what they want to do at that particular moment".

It's like vacation on steroids -- everybody is happy because they are doing exactly what they want to do right then (in the context of the event, of course).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> ESR wrote a little about gift economies in either The Cathedral and the Bazaar or one of its sequels, IIRC. I think the gist was that if resources are abundant, a person's status becomes determined more by what they give away than by what they own.

This doesn't sound quite the same, but similar. As one of the commenters points out, the economy is self-selecting, which helps.

<comment><USER12> ESR knows very little about real gift economies. It's not always about abundance. In potlatch culture in the Pacific Northwest, originally the gifts had as much symbolic as practical value. The introduction of Western-style abundance actually ruined the whole system. See Lewis Hyde's _The Gift_ for a much more thorough treatment, particularly the first two chapters.

As for Burning Man, it makes no sense to call it an "economy" when there is no scarcity. Every participant, with a few exceptions, has brought everything they need for survival in the desert for a week. Due to the nature of the event, few people are seeking luxuries.

Gifts at Burning Man are more about creating a mutually wonderful experience. Sometimes they take physical form, but more often the donation is directly related to experience -- art, performance, or a heightened generosity of spirit. This is not very much different from the change of attitude one might have at a potluck dinner, a block party, or a large rock concert where the fans feel themselves to be part of a particular subculture.</comment></comment>


Remember Smalltalk? (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_driver/2008/10/09/remember-smalltalk/ I've often referred to Smalltalk as the 'Latin' of modern OO languages.  Most owe a tremendous debt to Smalltalk but the language itself has been relegated to a small niche of technology elites for several years now.<p>Here a simply equation.  In terms of mental fortitude… <comment><USER2> It's simple. Java was free, Smalltalk was $50,000/seat.

<comment><USER3> Basically correct, except for the price of $50K. In the early 1980s I had a Xerox Lisp Machine (cost about $25K with extra RAM). Xerox let me use a Smalltalk license for a while for evaluation - I forget the exact price, but it was about $5K.

Now, nearly all programming languages are free :-)

Pharo Smalltalk (based on Squeak) is very nice, and runs on Mac, Windows, or Linux box using very little resources.

<comment><USER2> I learnt Java in '95 and was getting paid for it in '96 - the option to become a Smalltalk developer simply never existed for me - you already had to be one, to get access to it! That it faded into irrelevance is completely unsurprising, where was the fresh blood supposed to come from?

<comment><USER3> I rode the Java wave early on also. A good ride.

Smalltalk is still used, as is Common Lisp, Scheme, etc. Just because languages are only used for < 1% of commercial projects does not mean that people skilled in their use shouldn't use them. My go-to languages right now are Clojure, Java, and JavaScript, but, I still like to code occasionally in Pharo Smalltalk (good online tutorials, BTW, if you want to play with Pharo).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I started my professional career doing Smalltalk in the early 90's. The experience of development as a conversation in which I persuade a system to behave was really formative.

In a lot of ways, I'm still programming in Smalltalk... just in other languages.

</comment><comment><USER5> So, what's the advantage of Smalltalk over Ruby?

It seems like Ruby is a better Perl than Perl, a better Smalltalk than Smalltalk, and a better Python than Python.

It's slow (though that's getting better) but otherwise it allows genuinely beautiful system design.

<comment><USER6> >a better Python than Python

As someone who's quite the Ruby fan, this is the only one on the list I'd object to.

There's a very real philosophical difference between the two, which I'd identify as being their attitude to "magic". Ruby is OK with a certain level of increased complexity and semi-hidden behaviour if it means more expressivity. Python, on the other hand, prefers simplicity and explicitness.

It's not the most radical divide, and I don't really think either one is the One True Philosophy; they're just different. And neither is better at embodying the other's philosophy.

<comment><USER7> Well I mean that's Smalltalk: Things that look like magic in Ruby look as simple and explicit as Python in Smalltalk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone else love Smalltalk's message syntax. Objective-C uses it too. It has got to be the best syntax invented for a programming language. To see what I mean compare the normal procedural code vs. the OO version:

(a) drawRect(50, 50, 10, 21)

(b) aRect drawAtX: 50 andY: 50 width: 10 height: 21

<comment><USER9> I guess that's better in a COBOLly sort of way. I'd prefer a tool that let me investigate the signature and validate the arguments if I was interested; otherwise its awfully wordy and slow to write/read.

<comment><USER10> wordy maybe, but incredibly easy to understand upon coming back to the code. At least, more than a list of 5+ unnamed arguments in an arbitrary order made up by someone you'll never meet and you can only understand by looking at the api docs, if there are any.

<comment><USER9> I'd agree, except arguments are rarely just a list of numbers. With well-named constants, methods and variables its pretty clear what's being passed.

<comment><USER10> Yes, but in the case of a sometimes inconsistent API, you get things like string methods that are sometimes method(needle, haystack) and sometimes method(haystack, needle) and so on. If you were sending properly labeled messages, like you are forced to do in just about every web api ever, you can at least inspect the message to get an idea what is going on.

It's sort of weird to me that so much effort goes into making programming languages expressive, yet we cling to incredibly terse method names, sometimes too terse, and no labels on method inputs. So, if you don't know what some bit of code does, you have to figure out what the methods are doing and what arguments they are supposed to take.

I guess to me it's like if you had to do a dictionary lookup for every word you read and had minimal context to understand a words meaning in the context of the other words around it. At the very least you would cling to a dictionary if you wanted to get anything done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Smalltalk spirit is still alive, witness Pharo. And the legacy lives on in so many languages, like Ruby, Objective-C.

<comment><USER12> And even spawns new heirs, such as Objective-Smalltalk: [http://objective.st/](http://objective.st/)

<comment><USER13> And F-Script [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Script_(programming_language...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Script_\(programming_language\))

<comment><USER12> F-Script was actually how I discovered the beauty of Smalltalk :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I remember some IBM guys not nostalgic at all about ST. They said it was a doesNotUnderstandHELL. Maybe they didn't receive adequate training. They were quite in love with Eclipse/EMF/RSA way of life too. Funny.

</comment><comment><USER15> Beware! This Website will throw up 40 or 50 cookie permission dialogs in Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER16> Yeah, I got a nice experience with VisualWorks while at University, around 1996.

However Smalltalk lost the enterprise place it got, but its spirit lives partially[1] on modern dynamic languages.

[1] Without live coding experience, it isn't a full Smalltalk descendent.

<comment><USER17> Really live coding with Objective-Smalltalk[1]:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sypkOhE-ufs

It's obviously only a very simple example, but hopefully shows the potential.

[1] [http://objective.st/](http://objective.st/)

<comment><USER16> The Smalltalk environment is much more than just a REPL.

<comment><USER17> And that isn't a REPL, it's live evaluation on every keystroke.

But yes, you also have other tools, for example a class browser and inspectors that hook remotely into running programs via http, for example.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fossil Diatoms in a New Carbonaceous Meteorite - <AUTHOR> http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Polonnaruwa-meteorite.pdf

<comment><USER2> The Journal of Cosmology has rather a bad reputation. The fact that the meteorite only landed on earth three weeks before publication doesn't suggest that much review has gone on either.

Don't get me wrong: I'd love for this to be actual, irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial life and panspermia. It could even be that, but it's published in a crank paper unfortunately.

<comment><USER3> If we look at one of the authors, Chandra Wickramasinghe, it's clear he has an obvious bias towards this sort of thing: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe>

<comment><USER4> Perhaps a better word is specialization.

Most of us are armchair astrophysicists at best and we should not be so spontaneously dismissive. If there is something in all of this, we'll hear about it soon enough from the scientific community. In the meantime we should be conservative in how we depict the scientists and publications involved.

<comment><USER2> That is well said. One might equally accuse Leonard Susskind of a bias towards string theory. Chandra Wickramasinghe isn't himself a crank, and that's what gives me hopes for this research.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article mentions that similar fossilized diatoms are found in terrestrial rock dating back to the time of the dinosaur's extinction (believed to be from a large impact). Is it possible that these meteorites are ejecta from that impact, or even an earlier one?

<comment><USER6> interesting. I guess we can't really exclude the possibility, that this fossilized diatom cam from earth, traveled through space and came back to earth?

<comment><USER7> Definitely can't exclude that, and it's a testable hypothesis. We can compare rock compositions and determine with a fair degree of accuracy if it's a match for a terrestrial source.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There seems to be some attacks against the authors and the publication. And seems like that is somewhat justified. But what about the interesting images? Assuming that they are authentic (and I believe that is a fair assumption even in the case that the authors are crackpots), they imho warrant closer look, even if you'd skip all the fluff that is the speculation from the authors.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's a fun paper. One could argue (I'm not though) that only a crank journal would accept it for publication, but a better argument might be it doesn't really spend enough time to disprove itself. Such things are always more credible when the author takes time to try to disprove their own results by taking a different path through the data or use a different hypothesis.

That said, the only way to irrefutably make this claim is going to be to sample comet fragments actually in space. If this particular comment (Encke) is the source then it should be possible to mount a mission to intercept this particular comments tail, and then return to earth orbit. Once there a recovery mission to get the material to the ISS and careful observation might quiet a number of skeptics.

<comment><USER10> I'm really surprised they haven't done such a mission on Encke yet. It's a fairly obvious target for various explorations because its period is so short (3.3 years).

(When I taught in an aerospace museum, one of our simulated space missions was launching a probe into Encke's tail: [http://www.museumofflight.org/education/challenger- learning-...](http://www.museumofflight.org/education/challenger-learning- center) .)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a working mirror with images:

[http://www.buckingham.ac.uk.nyud.net/wp- content/uploads/2011...](http://www.buckingham.ac.uk.nyud.net/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/Polonnaruwa-meteorite.pdf)

May be a bit slow, but it's complete and functional.

</comment><comment><USER12> The Red Rain cell claims (even with a question mark to indicate tentativeness) seem particularly bold. It's not difficult to imagine circular structures forming abiotically, and given that there are much likelier explanations for the red rain, I remain unconvinced.

<comment><USER13> If diatoms did arrive in meteorites and are the ancestors of Earthly diatoms, you would think they would have shown up in the fossil record earlier.

<comment><USER14> Not really. Diatoms are tiny, and under the pressure of successive layers of sedimentation, silica (of which diatoms are largely comprised) will recrystallise at that scale, making detection of fossils difficult, if not impossible.

I believe there are Precambrian diatom candidates, but unlike bacteria, which form colonies and therefore can still be found from ~3.5Ga (stromatolites and friends), diatoms are free-floating, and therefore easily lost in sediment.

<comment><USER13> I see. What about candidates for a high silica rock that might have been metamorphized diatom deposits?

If this theory was correct and diatoms were the original life form, it would suggest they might be more primitive, genetically, assuming little subsequent evolution.

<comment><USER14> Indeed - I'd opine that the meteor in question was probably terrestrial in origin, as diatom genetics demonstrate that evolution is live and kicking in diatom populations. That said, it doesn't exclude the possibility of diatoms having perhaps taken a lengthy space trip at some point in their evolutionary history. It would certainly go some way to explaining why a marine species would have developed to be radiation and vacuum resistant.

As to siliceous rocks - possibly, although I don't believe there's been anything found to suggest diatoms in great antiquity as yet. Funnily enough the most prevalent siliceous rock is... diatomite. Your toothpaste is made out of it. Chert (flint, etc.) is probably a better candidate substrate, but again, diatoms of that age would be indistinguishable from the substrate itself. Molecular clocks could indicate a biogenic origin, but as yet there's no way to demonstrate what variety of biogenic origin.

There's evidence in terms of carbonaceous inclusions in ancient rocks that suggests the existence of life on earth before previously assumed - [http://courses.washington.edu/bangblue/Mojzsis-3.85Ga_Akilia...](http://courses.washington.edu/bangblue/Mojzsis-3.85Ga_Akilia_d13C-Sci96.pdf), but nothing to suggest it was diatomic in nature.

Anyway. If their evidence isn't falsified, even if this isn't extrasolar panspermia, it's a demonstration that panspermia is _possible_.

<comment><USER13> You're guessing the rock in question did fall from the sky, but that it was blasted of the Earth previously? Aren't there features of chontritic meteorites that would make it fairly easy to distinguish from an regular rock?

Given the incomplete theories on how cellular life got a start, I don't see why people think evolving on Earth is any more likely than arriving from somewhere else. More time and more planets.

<comment><USER14> Well, they appear to have decided it's a carbonaceous chondrite through visual examination alone - you can only really be sure by whacking it through a mass spectrometer and seeing what isotopes you've got.

Either way, I think panspermia is perfectly possible, but the jury's out until this is independently verified.

<comment><USER13> Well, if the science community ever decides Wickramasinghe is right I'll laugh.

It was interesting to read about diatoms:

about 25% of all photosynthesis, more than all the rainforests

location on "tree of life" is unclear:

"Despite a number of studies to examine phylogeny, using one or several genes, the relationships of diatoms to other groups are still unclear and there is still a huge gap in our understanding of how and when diatoms acquired their unusual morphology and life-cycle characteristics. The diatoms have often been treated as a separate phylum, reflecting their unique features. Pascher (1914, 1921) suggested that the diatoms have features in common with the Chrysophyceae and Xanthophyceae and therefore placed these classes and the Bacillariophyceae in the phylum Chrysophyta. Ultrastructural and molecular sequence data have confirmed the general thrust of Pascher's idea, placing the diatoms unambiguously among the heterokont protists ('stramenopiles') within the chromalveolates (Adl et al. 2005)."

and Wickramasinghe has hypothesized interstellar dust might be diatoms(!):

"there exists a close correspondence between the measured infrared properties of diatoms and the infrared spectrum of interstellar dust as observed in the Trapezium nebula and toward the galactic center source GC-IRS 7. Diatoms and bacteria also exhibit an absorbance peak near 2200 Å, which is found to agree with the observed ultraviolet absorbance properties of interstellar grains."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's down for me, I think this is a cached copy:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/Polonnaruwa-meteorite.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER13> Wow, that looks stronger than expected from the low-key presentation. I hope they can interest some other labs to attempt to double check their samples.

"The universe, not humans, must have the final say to declare what the world is really like" indeed.</comment>


Mozilla Recognized as Most Trusted Internet Company for Privacy - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/ <comment><USER2> Check the full results.[0] Mozilla ranked below AT&T, who had the iPad leak, below HP, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, eBay, Verizon, WebMD, etc.

They seem to have 'won' their category through being mis-categorized as 'Internet and Social Media', where they compete against Facebook and Twitter.

In terms of software vendors, they are outranked by most of the big names - only Google aren't mentioned.

Ranking behind that long list of companies, and only having to beat Twitter and Facebook on privacy issues is not a big win.

Edit: Also the source of this survey is very vague. It looks like a lobby/industry group who do nothing but put out surveys. No transparency on who the people behind it are, who makes up the board or how they are funded. From the website[1]:

 _Members of the RIM Council represent a cross-section of Fortune 500 companies and are champions of privacy and data protection in their organizations._

Interesting. So which companies exactly[2]?

 _RIM Council activities operate under strict confidentiality. Sponsorship revenues from participating Council companies provide funding for our core activities_

Oh, right.

[0] <http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/1/prweb10363796.htm>

[1] <http://www.ponemon.org/>

[2] <http://www.ponemon.org/rim-council>

<comment><USER3> It should be noted that this was a web-based survey, not a ranking by security audits.

> Our Web-based research study asked respondents to name up to five companies > in 25 different industries they believe to be the most trusted for > protecting the privacy of their personal information [0]

It's not terribly surprising that, given only five choices, more people chose some of the most well-known corporations in the world rather than the relatively PR-challenged Mozilla.

[0] [http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...](http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER4> That bit is fair enough. It's about trust (subjective) not trustworthiness (objective).

<comment><USER5> How can trustworthiness be objective while trust is subjective?

<comment><USER4> True. Trustworthiness is probably not a good word. What I meant was that trustworthiness could be construed as a objective measure (such as that reached by diligent security and privacy experts), while whether or not you actually trust someone is basically a feeling. Maybe "Fitness to be trusted" is a better term?

<comment><USER6> Your intended meaning was very clear since you used parenthesized qualifiers. IMO any argument on your usage is pedantic at best, but I would have put it as perceived and empirical/actual trustworthiness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the PRWeb article:

 _More than 100,000 adult-aged consumers were asked to name up to five companies they believe to be the most trusted for protecting the privacy of their personal information_

This is nothing more than a name recognition contest. I'm actually surprised Mozilla made the list at all.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I agree. Also how many consumers know how their/others privacy is handled/valued by these companies. Beauty contest thats all. (most brand related surveys don't mean much, because not many people know a thing or 2 about the lesser known companies)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really love what Mozilla is doing and they would be pretty close to #1 on my trusted companies list.

Sadly, the post is so misleading and borderline dishonest that it just makes them seem a bit less trustful. I mean, the study's categorization is seriously arbitrary and for example Microsoft, which is a direct Mozilla competitor, is ranked higher overall but isn't in the same category.

Also, Google (another Mozilla competitor) wasn't ranked this year, but they were rank 19 last year (Mozilla is 20)...

This is really a good example that you'll always find a way to segment your data so you can push your agenda.

<comment><USER10> As someone already mentioned these end-user surveys seem to be closer to popularity contests. I have no doubt MS, Google, Apple etc are astronomically more popular than Mozilla and will rank higher based on name recognition.

These results probably do hold another meaning but it would take someone better than me at testing to figure that out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's the main reason why Firefox is still my main browser, I trust the Mozilla Foundation to do the right thing. Also, there is no nagging "connect to your account" every time I restart the browser or open a new tab or whatever, I hate this message, I want to browse the web not connect to another service. Moreover I find it is still the more convenient browser for customization and tweaking. For instance I only have to set network.http.sendRefererHeader to 0 to prevent sending http referrers. I use the Nightly version and it's pretty stable although I would prefer not having to restart FF after each update.

<comment><USER12> Yup, I love using firefox for the same reasons. It's just so incredibly customizable, and you can't get that level of customizability/compatibility in any other major web browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is some gerrymandered surveying.

Yes, technically Mozilla comes in at #1 in the Internet & Social Media Category, but that category excludes higher-ranking companies such as Amazon (classified as eCommerce), ebay (eCommerce), WebMD (healthcare), Microsoft (technology and software), and Intuit (technology and software).

Let's be real, if the parent company of Mint.com beats you, then this isn't really much to brag about. I mean, I do love me some Mozilla, but come on now.

</comment><comment><USER14> The article's title is misleading. I read the linked study (pdf and prweb summary of results) and found nothing to support that they are the "Most Trusted Internet Company"... In fact, Amazon, eBay, WebMD, and Microsoft are all above it on the list. All of those I'd consider to be "Internet companies". If you alter it, as Mozilla did in the paragraph below, to read "Internet & Social Media" then it's right according to the linked pdf, but that's hardly the same thing as the title.

I do trust Mozilla far more than the other companies that made this list, but I can't help but feel their title is intentionally misleading.

I do find it odd that Mozilla didn't end up higher of course. Out of the listed entities I don't think any of the others are non-profit (nor have something like the Mozilla Manifesto as a guiding principal), and if any are I doubt that they understand crypto anywhere near as well as Mozilla. I trust Mozilla because they not only have the desire to keep me safe, but also have the technical know-how.

</comment><comment><USER15> In other news: Mozilla basically the only major internet company whose business model isn't built on selling your privacy.

<comment><USER16> I love both companies, but you realize Mozilla makes most of their money because of a search deal with Google, right?

<comment><USER15> Yeah, but selling your privacy isn't the point of its existence, unlike Google, Facebok, Twitter, etc. That makes it the top performer in the Special Olympics, so to speak.

<comment><USER17> >Yeah, but selling your privacy isn't the point of its existence, unlike Google

I usually agree with your comments, rayiner, but have to disagree with this one.

Unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary (and neither Mozilla's mission statement nor its non-profit status qualifies as very strong evidence), any organization that depends on an organization that 'sells your privacy' (your words) for over 90% of its income is just as bad-for-your- privacy in the long term as an organization that directly sells your privacy.

<comment><USER18> When I type my words in the little magic box mozilla sends them to the one company I want to see them -- google. I'm not sure how that's a betrayal of privacy? (unless Mozilla is sending _other_ words to google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ironic that the page gives me a mixed content warning:

"The page at <https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/> displayed insecure content from [http://blog.mozilla.org/files/2013/01/most- trusted-privacy-2...](http://blog.mozilla.org/files/2013/01/most-trusted- privacy-2012-252x218.jpg.)

</comment><comment><USER20> As much as I love Mozilla for precisely this reason, it cannot go without remark that the majority of their funding continues to come from the metaphorical privacy antichrist, Google. This could change as early as 2014 when the search contract is due for renewal.

Can anyone comment on Mozilla's future revenue plans? Are they aiming to license Firefox OS?

<comment><USER19> Do you really believe that Google is the "metaphorical privacy antichrist" and if so, can I ask what exactly makes you feel that way?

<comment><USER21> People tell Google incredibly intimate things on an hourly basis, many of which Google then sells to pesterers or gives to three letter agencies. People may catch on eventually, but most simply don't think they need to care what the consequences may be.

<comment><USER22> Google doesn't sell anything.

<comment><USER23> Google sells users to its customers: advertisers.

<comment><USER19> No it doesn't. It sells ad space next to content on valuable internet properties. Google Search and YouTube being the two big ones.

Please everyone, stop sensationalizing this. Google doesn't "sell users" or "sell your privacy" any more than, e.g., NBC, which sells ads alongside its content.

<comment><USER23> Yes, it does; of course it does. Google's reason for getting everyone connected through its services is to gain an audience for targeted advertising. It's certainly not "sensationalizing" to point that out. It needs users for its advertisers, and it sells access to those users.

NBC does too--they are a business that depends on readership/viewership because they make their money from advertising. That means that their business is to attract as many consumers of their content as they can so that their advertisers can reach them.

I'm surprised that this would even be considered a controversial point to make. Perhaps you don't like the wording: calling you their "product" and the advertisers their "customers". But there's not meant to be a personal element to it. It's simply an explanation of what their business model is.

<comment><USER19> I think you're being a bit disingenuous. I'm pretty sure I understand Google's business model. And you should know that I understand it based on my other comments in this thread.

What I don't think is particularly helpful is the characterization of that business model as "selling users" or "selling privacy", which are phrasings that you and other commenters here have used. Those phrasings are designed to spread FUD about Google.

I don't think people usually say things like "NBC is selling it's users/viewers to advertisers." The normal thing to say is "NBC sells advertisement slots during its programs."

<comment><USER23> I've never said they're "selling privacy", whatever that means. Presumably, that's shorthand for selling access to personal information, which is a simplistic characterization but not entirely inaccurate with respect to how targeted advertising works.

However, I don't understand how it is spreading FUD to point out that an advertising company sells eyeballs. It seems like you're focusing on connotations of terminology, but rephrasing what Google or NBC does doesn't change what it is they do: selling eyeballs. Why do you think Super Bowl spots are so expensive?

Maybe this clashes with the image you have of Google as a benevolent group of engineers who just want to make the world a better place. Certainly, a company can be comprised of employees who care about technology but also rely on a business model that might be cynically criticized or, at the least, described in a way that may not appear as benevolent as you previously thought.

However, that wasn't even my intent. I was just being concise.

<comment><USER19> I can appreciate conciseness. And I agree that you were being concise. I also agree that I am focusing on the connotations of the words you used. That's the thing about FUD: usually the words are _technically_ accurate. But the connotation ensures that a deeper, scarier message is conveyed.

I do take you at your word though that it was not your intention. Take this discussion then as a warning that your statement may not have come off as you intended it to.

It is not FUD to point out that a company sells eyeballs. If you had said "Google sells users' eyeballs to its customers: advertisers" you would have received no complaint from me. Adding that single word, "eyeballs", entirely clarifies your statement. Without it, people will need to fill in something else since we all know Google isn't literally selling its users to advertisers. A lot of people will interpret your statement as "Google sells users' personal information to its customers: advertisers."

Leaving out the clarification made it seem as though you wanted to allow the reader to draw a more frightening conclusion about Google's business model than is justified by reality.

Anyway I think we both agree. I have friends at Google, but they are in ad sales and HR not engineering. So I certainly don't think of Google as merely a "benevolent group of engineers." I have no problem calling out their business model for what it is. But accuracy and precision is important, especially when being concise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Note that Mozilla wasn't #1 on the list. They were just added to the list (at #20). Amex is #1.

[http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...](http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER15> Mozilla is the #1 in the internet/social media industry. See page 7. Unsurprisingly, the industry as a whole ranks last out of the 25 industries in the list.

<comment><USER22> Actually this is really surprising, considering a lot of the companies/industries ranked above it are _much_ worse at privacy, just much better at the snow job of hiding it.

Taking banking, ranked #3, which has a lot of companies (well, basically all of them) that not only sell all of your transaction info/etc, you can't opt out, and it isn't very anonymized.

Look at [https://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/consumer-privacy- notic...](https://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/consumer-privacy-notice.go)

for an example.

At least with most internet companies, you can opt out if you like, and most internet companies do _not_ share with affiliates. It's not like Facebook is selling your social data to advertisers directly, instead it's selling the ability to show ads to people like you.

This is a far cry from "hey, want records of what dannyb bought in the last month with his BoA account so you can market better? Here you go!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The irony is that Firefox is by far the least secure current browser (after Chrome, then probably Safari and IE10 for various reasons, then Firefox).

<comment><USER26> Erm - why exactly? Sources?

<comment><USER27> I think most of the others have JS sandboxing, but FF doesn't.

<comment><USER25> Along with key pinning, general effort put into security by google (fixing webkit fixes safari for free, etc.)

Mozilla is doing awesome stuff for _privacy_ (persona is a great idea and if it displaces FB connect is a huge win for privacy), but is slacking on security by comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What a joke. If any browser vendor really gave a fuck about privacy it would simply not be a problem anymore at all.

It's certainly not worthy to have to deceive your way to the top of a list that exists because of how _little_ privacy really matters to browser vendors.

<comment><USER29> How would this happen like you say?

Browsers stop accepting third party cookies & scripts, block ads, disable localStorage, etc?

It'd be the browser that no one would use, because half the sites on the 'net wouldn't work.

Like many big problems, the solution is a lot more nuanced than you suggest. It involves browsers having more stringent defaults, website makers caring more (altruistically or by legislation) and consumers caring more.

<comment><USER28> They fight off viruses, malware, exploits, etc so I think mostly we should consider this a classification problem only from where we sit.

Most of the net works too - AdBlock, NoScript and Ghostery wouldn't be amongst the most popular extensions on multiple browsers if they had many negative consequences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The same report lists the NRA as the most trusted non-profit. Not exactly the ringing endorsement the Mozilla's blog makes it out to be.

However, Mozilla should get some branding kudos for having enough people associate privacy and trustworthiness with the Mozilla brand.

</comment><comment><USER31> I open up the study and find the following:

 _American Express (AMEX) continues to reign as the most trusted company for privacy among 217 organizations rated in our most trusted companies list. New entrants to this year's top 20 most trusted list includes: Microsoft (ranked 17), United Healthcare (ranked 18) and Mozilla (ranked 20)._

So not exactly the "Most Trusted Internet Company for Privacy" given they were ranked 20th and AMEX was ranked first.

Source: [http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report...](http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/2012%20MTC%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER32> American Express was in a different category than Mozilla. American Express was first over all categories, yeah.

(The survey and categories are a bit weird, no argument there.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Yeh for anyone who has a website, Mozilla Persona is a great method for users to login

<http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/persona/>

you can see it action when you login (4th option presented) to <http://ebookoid.com/>

</comment><comment><USER34> I'll buy that. They have no ulterior motive to collect personal data and they have been very vocal on privacy issues.

</comment><comment><USER35> From the study:

 _Note: The eCommerce subgroup consists of Internet retainers (merchants). All other Internet companies are contained in the Internet & Social Media subgroup._

Otherwise, Amazon beats out Mozilla handily.

</comment><comment><USER36> Being the most trusted internet company for privacy is like being the branch of the sewer with the fewest disease-carrying rats. Sure, you're the best of the bunch, but how much does that really say?

</comment><comment><USER37> haha privacy. then why when I type about:config in FF and search for google plenty of spying comes up.

<comment><USER38> I see safe browsing and default search related settings. Why would this be surprising?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> For what it's worth, security & software guy Steve Gibson uses the Firefox browser.

</comment><comment><USER40> I understand why, but it's ironic to see that the article's domain is "mozilla.org".

For the Dutch people around here: "Wij van WC-eend..." :)

<comment><USER41> Why is it ironic?

<comment><USER42> Parent is saying ACME has the best products, according to ACME. I, for one, don't click such articles as they're usually biased to favour the authors. _Checks real quick_ In this case, Mozilla really ranked #20 but were #1 in their category of just 12. The article reeks of exploding just one tiny bullet point in a report which appears not to have been reviewed much outside of Ponemon Institute LLC except for the fine commentary here on HN.

(See [http://search.cpan.org/~chromatic/Acme- Incorporated-1.00/lib...](http://search.cpan.org/~chromatic/Acme- Incorporated-1.00/lib/Acme/Incorporated.pm) )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Congrats to Mozilla but honestly, I wonder when they implement Retina support, Web Audio API and other goodies (or must-haves) Chrome and Safari have for years. It's hard to use such a browser in 2013.</comment>


Do you need a college degree to pursue a career as a web developer? - <AUTHOR> http://www.blonde.net/blog/2015/04/16/so-you-want-be-developer

<comment><USER2> Short answer, no. But you need a whole lot of projects to show off before you can get your foot at the door of some companies.</comment>


Hackers hid malware in CCleaner software – The Verge - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/18/16325202/ccleaner-hack-malware-security <comment><USER2> The discussion is substantial, and over here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274339](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274339)</comment>


[Kickstarter] Eon Altar, a Tablet+Smartphone RPG game - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/flyinghelmetgames/eon-altar-a-tabletop-videogame-for-2-5-players

<comment><USER2> My friends are ready to publish their game, and are asking for support to see their dream come true!</comment>


"Macros are a net drawback" - <AUTHOR> http://people.csail.mit.edu/jhbrown/macros/

<comment><USER2> The best quote was saved for last:

"Q: What do you get when programmers design a language while trying to get something else done?

A: PHP"

Covers it all really.

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems just like the general argument against extreme cleverness. Don't be cleverer than you must, or nobody else will understand it and you won't be able to debug it.

I think relatively simple macros are quite useful, but I agree with his argument for complex ones. Where the line is between handwavy categories like "relatively simple" and "complex", is beyond me at the moment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right. He's not saying, "macros are bad", he's saying, "macros often lead to code that's very hard to maintain, and in the end many are more trouble than they're worth". You can still do very powerful things without them in most cases; as far as I recall, SICP has no macros.

Code conventions go a long way, though - with-* macros are easily understood, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Macros Considered Harmful"

"Macros: They're for Nazis"

"Macros are for Dirty Hippies"

"Macros are Just Like Goto"

Solid, rational arguments against macro use. Very readable/understandable outline. Interesting topic.

I wish slideshare looked like this. :-P</comment>


The Lost History of the 'City' of Brooklyn - <AUTHOR> https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/the-lost-history-of-the-city-of-brooklyn/ <comment><USER2> The image at the top of the article is interesting. It shows Brooklyn in 1979. A completed Brooklyn bridge spans the east River. However, The Brooklyn bridge wasnt completed until 4 years later..

<comment><USER3> The towers were up by 1876 and the main cables were being hung by 1879 so the artist really only had to fill in the decking and approaches.

Since Governors Island looks just plain goofy I'm going to assume the illustration was promotional art for somebody wanting to sell property in Park Slope.

plus ça change...

<comment><USER4> Do you realise you two are talking about entirely different centuries to each other?

<comment><USER5> It's just a typo in the first comment, they are talking about the same thing given the context.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How a little-known Democratic firm cashed in on the wave of midterm money - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a-little-known-democratic-firm-cashed-in-on-the-wave-of-midterm-money/2019/01/08/f91b04bc-fef5-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html <comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting read on the intersection between Tech/Politics/Money.

Personally I think it's bad idea to inject this type of (essentially) spam email marketing into politics to drive fundraising, but the alternative of Super PAC isn't very attractive either.</comment>