I built a private car sales search engine. Feedback appreciated - <AUTHOR> https://hiddenrides.com <comment><USER2> Nice site.

Few design notes that I think would spruce it up a bit:

1\. Search: Enter keyword(s) \- on my default window it was cut-off slightly. I think you can drop the "Enter"

2\. Min/Max Price/Miles is the same issue. Since its under Price and Miles you should consider just using min/max

3\. Date(newest) drop the date. With newest/oldest/... date is implied

4\. Not a huge fan of the banner color/fade. I think a more flat color would make it look less template-y

5\. I noticed the source is various forums. Some people may want to filter on the forum type, but if there are too many I would understand a filter may be impractical

6\. When you select something from a drop-down it should automatically update the search

7\. Make your About Us less generic. It feels very anonymous. I understand if you may not want to share your name but consider sharing more information. Like who is us? How many people are working on it? When was it built? Where are you based? If it felt more personal, people would be more likely to give their email. Also more information about what the newsletter looks like, how often and an assurance that emails will not be sold.

Hidden Rides about us:

> About Hidden Rides 100% Free Started by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. > We felt the pain of combing through forum threads to find gems that we would > have never found otherwise spending hours every week checking up on the > newest listings. Everyday, Hidden Rides aggregates classified listings from > auto enthusiast forums so you can easily browse the secondary market of > peer-to-peer car sales. Questions/comments/concerns? Contact us.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow - thank you! really appreciate the detailed feedback.

1-4, 6: noted, will keep in mind for the next update.

5: yeah i have been asked this a few times as well, we are pulling from a growing list (200+ forums), so might not be the most user friendly. I think brand/manufacturer works as a proxy.

7\. did not spend too much time on the copy, but maybe now its time to update! great suggestions, will definitely adjust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Consider some way to avoid the $1 listing problem that plagues sites. That price is nearly always just a gimmick to get attention or hit on most searches rather than be a real offer.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't know about anyone else, but searching just in California is not nearly a small enough distance. How about miles from a zipcode, and/or miles from a city center ??

</comment><comment><USER5> Your parser is misinterpreting some information. I clicked on a R8 and that is showing as $29,000 when in fact the mileage is 29,000.

<comment><USER6> I came here to comment the same.

The mileage is displayed as the price and the price as mileage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a Utahn I have the, what I presume is rare, privilege of using a local classifieds site that literally every Utahn also uses. It's run by local news agency KSL (the SL is for Salt Lake)

[https://www.ksl.com/auto/](https://www.ksl.com/auto/)

Given this plus local dealerships I don't imagine that I would ever use a disruptor's product due to the basically 100% relevant market penetration and strong history of continued success of KSL's site.

</comment><comment><USER8> \- "Man. Region" is non-intuitive, would recommend "Made In" or something similar

\- Some states are big, some are small, distance from ZIP code would be more practical than just state.

\- Would do some monitoring of the hit rate of some of the UI features to see if they're actually useful. (i.e Will someone really ever want to specify a filter for minimum number of miles, or do sort by the higher number of miles)

</comment><comment><USER9> Looks good on mobile which is nice. Clicked on a link for a Maserati which took me to a forum post from 2007, so seems like there's some stale data...

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks man - is that the 2009 silver GT sport?

i think the user created his profile in 2007. listing is from today.

<comment><USER9> Ah, yep, you're right. Well, your search engine is certainly better at parsing that forum layout than I was :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice interface, but I agree with the other poster who says it needs a more fine-grained geographical search. Also, I'm sure the only car under $10K in California isn't a 1975 Corvette that needs work.

<comment><AUTHOR> fine tuned geo search is something im looking into atm. trying to figure out if its a nice to have, versus a need to have feature - as it will take a ton of work on the back end.

thanks for the cali example, yes, that does not sound right to me. i think ill have to expand the scope of the sources to include more "affordables" (under 10k). the sweet spot is really in the 15k-50k range.

<comment><USER10> It depends. If you're looking for a project car or a very specialized kind of car, then searching by state is okay. If you're like me and looking for a car to drive around, I'm probably not going to go more than an hour away from where I live to find one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Please add a filter for automatic vs manual transmission.

Bonus if you do machine learning on pictures of manuals and automatically flag idiot dealers who list automatic as manual.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is great! Forum search is genius, well done.

Let me search by year.

<comment><AUTHOR> ty sir. year search on the todo list

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a really nice design

How are you populating the data? are you scraping forums and grabbing pictures or curating it manually?

</comment><comment><USER14> So how does it work? Does it scrape a specified number of sites and forums for content?

</comment><comment><USER15> Preliminary bug report: selecting EU as a region keeps giving me US states as locations.

<comment><USER8> This confused me too. The site is US only. The region is for the manufacturer of the car. i.e. Wanting to look for European cars vs US-made, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Didnt seem to work for me, unable to find trucks or buicks on my searches.

</comment><comment><USER17> Site looks nice, would love something like this for Australia

<comment><AUTHOR> :) looking into potentially expanding into regions. AU has a great supra forum...

tough thing at this point is gauging demand but as long as i keep getting the ask - something to consider</comment></comment>


First Touches of SharePoint Spaces Preview - <AUTHOR> https://mattipaukkonen.com/2020/05/01/first-touches-of-sharepoint-spaces-preview <comment><AUTHOR> SharePoint Spaces – a new feature introduced back in 2018 is now available in preview on SharePoint Online. Spaces brings in mixed-reality experiences and possibilities to interact with content using mixed reality headsets. You can also look around and interact with Spaces without any headset, currently a mouse is preferred.</comment>


Elon Musk threatens to leave White House councils over Paris deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/31/elon-musk-trump-paris-climate-pact-238990 <comment><USER2> > Oracle CEO Safra Catz, who played a role in the Trump transition, plans to > attend the event, but other industry executives haven't confirmed their > participation yet.

Colour me surprised.

Good for Elon. He was principled in staying, believing that involvement was better than criticism from afar. Given what Tesla and TBC are trying to achieve, it's no surprise that it's largely at direct odds to dropping out of the Paris agreement.

Be interesting to see who stays on after. If Oracle is the only company on your side, you're definitely on the wrong side of history.</comment>


Sign Up for Startup Alley in Tel Aviv - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/25/sign-up-for-startup-alley-in-tel-aviv/ <comment><USER2> Wonder if it will be open to Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza?</comment>


A New Operating System -- What to Call It? - <AUTHOR>

Any idea of what to call a new operating system? The other day the name Astronaut struck me. I'd want it to be small enough for one person but powerful enough to take him/her to outer space.
I wrote about making a new operating system a few days ago: http://nickmudge.info/?post=91 <comment><USER2> Disclaimer: I don't want to offend you, I have nothing personal against you (I don't even know anything about you).

But.

I have seen this many times. People have their Great Idea. Like writing a whole new operating system. However, they do this by staring threads on the internets about how great their operating system will be. Without having actual goals (other than the vague ideas about what will make their system so great), doing their research on the topic or even having the necessary skills to start.

If you really intend to create a new operating system, then go for it. I'd be happy to see your next post in 3-6 months about the "New operating system I've been developing and published in <this> git repo. It has no name yet, and can boot only on <insert virtual machine>, and doesn't do too much even on that one. I also have plans to do <this> and <this> in the next months. Comments welcome."

See template: <http://www.linux.org/people/linus_post.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> "I wrote about making a new operating system a few days ago:"

You also posted a "I am thinking of writing an operating system" link to ycombinator(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=162938>) a few days ago. Now you post another asking for a name. Lines of code == zero!

How about you actually __write __an operating system and then submit a link?

I, for one, really don't want to see a series of " I am thinking of writing an operating system", "I want a name for an operating system" , " hey I wrote my first line of code for an operating system" "hey I did my first check in" .... series of posts.

Please, write the damn thing and THEN post here! Thanks in advance,

<comment><USER4> Yes. If we want play by play, we can all do `git log`.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While picking a name, make sure to pick a cute mascot, design a boot loader graphic, create an online community, ponder about destroying Microsoft before committing a single line of code to your repository.

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be personal but if I had a nickel every time I read about people creating their new awesome operating system and having it never materialize, I'd have some snacks right now.

Like others said, write a first prototype, create a rough draft of most subsystems and then make this post. You'll earn a lot more respect.

</comment><comment><USER6> names can come later.

the original name of linux was 'freax'.

I remember your original post. Is this OS going to be a *nix?

astronaut isn't original enough (although it sounds like a good release name)

osname 1.0 astronaut :P

I've nothing off the top of my head though...

</comment><comment><USER7> All this baseless talk about a new OS is a really lowly linkbaiting and karma- earning strategy.

Can we stop upmodding such stories please?

</comment><comment><USER8> Dunny why, but the name "Cherry" pops into my head. Best of luck to you.

<comment><USER2> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CherryOS>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> YAOS? Yet Another Operating System.

<comment><USER10> Or perhaps KAOS: KAOS Is Not An Acronym For Anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> well, given your focus on virtualization, what about something that references clones / zombies / ants / Neos

replicant?

googlable helps

</comment><comment><USER12> how about vapornix? or vaporOS?

</comment><comment><USER13> mudge's os ... smudge ?

</comment><comment><USER14> mudnicks

</comment><comment><USER15> st3alther was HERE the New Ubuntu ver. 8 was Update and More secure.</comment>


Drug-resistant malaria has been detected at the Myanmar-India border - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31533559

<comment><USER2> Can someone help me understand how the drug-resistant microorganisms can compete against their non-drug resistant counterparts?

Doesn't the drug resistance take extra energy and focus that makes the organism less competitive?</comment>


I Got Catfished by a Candidate - <AUTHOR> https://www.saastr.com/catfished-by-a-candidate/ <comment><USER2> You just never know who might turn up from your past...

1999: I was a sysadmin at an ISP in Austin. One day we had a tour come through, people looking to see if they wanted to colo in our datacenter. In walks in the former CEO and most of the technical staff from the Oklahoma City-based ISP I'd started my career at and left in '96\. We laughed, shook hands.. and they headhunted me away a couple months later with a 200% salary increase for their new Austin-based startup.

2015: interviewing for a remote sysadmin position at a firm in California. They knew of me through some mailing lists I've run for a couple of decades. A couple of interviews in, I mention that I'd need to get off early on Thursdays to attend Lodge as I was a Freemason. Turns out two other execs interviewing me were also Masons. It certainly didn't hurt my job prospects.. And then after I started the CEO asked "Weren't you mr_bill on efnet #unix IRC in the 90s?" I gulped and said "Yeah..." and he said "Cool! I was on there too..."

And, at my current job, after I got hired, my team lead said "Yeah, (other coworker) said you were cool and said you'd fit in well here..." \- turns out the other coworker was another EFNet IRC buddy that I'd never met in person..

So, never lie about a contact or reference and never burn bridges if you can avoid it - you never know when someone from your past may be in a position to influence your future.

<comment><USER3> Next time someone says technical hiring is not hiring quite so many women or minorities because it's purely meritocratic, I'm going to point them at this post.

<comment><USER4> (1) Networking and building a reputation for yourself will always have value.

(2) Most of the things that he's listed are merits. Being involved in his community, having a strong verifiable previous job history with good references, etc.

(3) Having a good job history, making friends, and being involved in online and offline communities are not things limited to white males.

<comment><USER3> In re (3), the post specifically mentions the Masons, which traditionally is extremely exclusive, men-only, excludes Catholics, etc.

They've opened up _slightly_ in response to pressure, and there are some female freemasons, but it's still pretty exclusive.

<comment><USER4> The masons was an anecdote specific to that commenter, my point was that there are many different types of groups that serve the same purpose.

<comment><USER5> At the very least, I think pjc50's observation highlights that there is a certain _inertia_ in some industries that perpetuates a bias toward one or the other gender.

Edit: changed a couple of words to make my point clearer.

<comment><USER4> Well if we're doing anecdotes, I work for the second largest IT firm in my country, and the management is largely made up of women, and I don't believe any of them to be freemasons.

Perhaps this observation has more to do with location and culture than it does industry.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, my point wasn't really about Freemasons in particular, but I'm too tired now to try to clarify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The thing I don't get is, and probably I'll be downvoted to hell because of that, even though this guy lied about his past, his knowledge is solid. Nobody can guess what the interviewers will ask you and from what I've read from the text he aced those.

If this is the tech business rolls what I see that it wants developers with a history, with connections, with "clout" so to speak; doesn't matter if you can help their business immensely, or fit to the position they are listing for. And this attitude is really really paradoxical. Like you are not searching for a candidate with required skillset but an ideal candidate with required skillset with glowing references. Because why take the risk? Like having a glowing history prevents anything happening...

Anyway imho what you are trying to gauge from a job interview is how good that guy/gal is. And I'm sure if that guy did say "I am an newly trained man with no relevant job history" he wouldn't go into the interview stage even though he knows his stuff for his application. I mean if he failed that, I'd say "okay this guy is trying to scam this company" but no, he is able and informed about the position he is applying to. And that's totally irrelevant from the text I am reading. Which is bonkers if you pardon my french.

This text also reminded me of a quote from Neil Gaiman, he faked his references for his first job and then he worked to create those references([https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-neil-gaiman- commencem...](https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-neil-gaiman-commencement- speech-to-the-university-of-the-arts-class-of-2012/2/)). In his words he was "chronologically challenged". So if he was trying to be a writer in our modern times, we wouldn't have a Neil Gaiman.

<comment><USER7> His knowledge is solid, sure, but would you really want to work with someone who has such a strong inclination to cheat and deceive? I certainly wouldn't.

<comment><USER8> He adapted to an unfavourable situation, studied hard, did his research well and passed multiple tests - I'd gladly work with someone like that

<comment><USER9> And when the solution to the next unfavorable situation he faces involves railroading you? Liars lie and cheaters cheat. You might be fine if you're never their target, but you never know when you will be.

<comment><USER10> Well said. These types of people are driven by an extreme arrogance that manifests itself as the justification for any bad behavior. Ultimately they believe they are always right, so if they have to lie in order to get you fired, that's fine, because clearly your crazy ideas are a threat to everyone's livelihood, and it would just be better for everyone if you were gone from the office, they just don't know it yet, but I have a knack for these things that others seem to lack, so I'll take it upon myself to engineer your firing.

<comment><USER11> The companies they're applying to are engaged in behavior that is just as bad, so these "catfishers" are just creatively adapting to the unfavorable situation that employers have collectively created.

<comment><USER9> You're right. Still wouldn't hire them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > However, I am glad that I caught it early before we hired him. If we had > hired him, tough to say what could have happened. Maybe he would have been > great and our best performing AE. Maybe he wouldn't have even known how to > log into Salesforce.

When you make it to the top by lying, you're considered a winner:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/how-goldman-gary-cohn-got- to-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-goldman-gary-cohn-got-to-wall- street-2015-5)

> "I lied to him all the way to the airport," Cohn told Gladwell. "When he > said, 'Do you know what an option is?' I said, 'Of course I do, I know > everything, I can do anything for you.' Basically by the time we got out of > the taxi, I had his number. He said, 'Call me Monday.' I called him Monday, > flew back to New York Tuesday or Wednesday, had an interview, and started > working the next Monday.

I know there are dozens of other examples, because I hear people talk about how they had to lie to get their first break all the damn time, from people who are now very successful.

<comment><USER13> Everyone lies, because the interviewing process itself is a fucking joke, ESPECIALLY in the Bay Area.

If the person can answer all my questions and they have a good attitude, I honestly don't give a shit what got them to that point.

If someone doesn't work out, you can fire them. Yes it's "exhausting", maybe if it's so difficult to manage or run a business you should find a different role for yourself.

I really enjoy hiring personally. I treat it like a two way street instead of "I'm the big boss man with all the power". I remember how I was recruited out of college, I show that same interest in the employee as I want them to show in their career (note, not my company, I'm 100% okay with someone just coming in and doing a good job, not being in fucking love with my product, industry or anything else all these bullshit companies seem to offer).

<comment><USER14> > Everyone lies

I am clueless about certain things and perhaps this is one of them... but really? Outright lies of pure red-handed snake-oil fiction?

Surely there must be a line between the "HR speak" most must sing along to and reality that does not qualify as pure uncut straight-up lies.

Help me understand what you mean.

<comment><USER15> For literal people like myself the line between a lie such as "my biggest flaw is I work too hard" or "I have never used illegal drugs" and a lie like "I worked at Acme Corp" can seem thin.

<comment><USER14> Please explain to me how "this person worked here" compares to "I never inhaled". These two statements do not equalize for me.

<comment><USER16> Totally similar things. Drugs are irrelevant for doing the job and same is work experience. What matters is skills but they can't be measured most of the time so proxy value "experience" has been invented. But everyone knows that it is only a proxy thing and that very likely you won't be hired if you can do the job but can't "prove" it. So social moral value of lying about work experience has fallen to insignificant levels, for majority of jobs. The only thing stopping people from lying about experience part is fear of getting caught or no need to do it in the first place.

<comment><USER11> Exactly. I've been pretty lucky in that I've had a lot of good experience, so my lying is with other things, such as making people think I plan to stick around at their company for a really long time when that's very unlikely.

I have to agree with the other poster: I think nearly everyone lies, it's just a matter of what they lie about, and how much. Don't forget that "lies of omission" are still lies. You're not going to get far by being completely truthful about everything. I was lucky that my educational background and work experience have been good (and of course that I come from the right socioeconomic background for this kind of work), but there's other places where I've had to be less than honest (like "why did you leave this job?"). I'm sure just about everyone is the same way to some extent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's strange to me how much linkedin is valued in silicon valley because to me it's like the ugly stepsister of social networking. Expecting someone to have a fully built out profile and expecting that person to actively seek out contacts in their own company is strange. I typically seek out contacts either when I first meet them or not at all. The only rhyme or reason to when I do it is when I happen to have a reason to be on linkedin. People are very haphazard about what their contacts look like. Some people have 50% recruiters, some people it's all friends, some people it's work colleagues, some people it's potential clients. Just because you know somebody doesn't mean that you are linkedin friends, and just because you aren't linkedin friends, doesn't mean that that person knows much about you at all.

I wouldn't trust social profile hunting as a real gauge for anyone's abilities. I know plenty of good coders that don't have github accounts because they aren't involved in open source at all. There are plenty of recruiters that don't know linkedin because they have other sources that fill their pipelines. There are people that build out their profiles specifically for job searches. There are others that won't build out a profile at all.

As far as back-channel references go, I'm not a fan. I expect references to be minimal because giving a reference is odd territory. A bad reference can result in a lawsuit, so why would anyone ever give a bad one? A TMI good reference can result in a lawsuit. People should stick to the basics.

The danger territory as far as I'm concerned is hiring someone at the tail end of a long group of rejects. You peel back your instincts in order to get to the finish line.

<comment><USER18> I'm not really surprised at how heavily linkedin is used. It's an easy check for companies to carry out, so they'll make use of it.

As a candidate spending a bit of time connecting to people on Linkedin can help your chances of finding a role, so why not do it? Obviously, some people will have other better avenues of getting roles, but it's one avenue that can be used.

Personally I've never used Linkedin to find a role however I do find it handy just to get an idea of who works where in the industry and where pepople I've known in previous roles work now.

<comment><USER17> I suppose I phrased things a bit harshly. I see value in LinkedIn from a candidate/networking perspective. From a validation/reference perspective is where I see the issue.

This isn't the first I've heard of using it for back-channel references. I think that is pretty common in the bay area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Maybe the author should evaluate _why_ they got catfished.

Recruiting processes are so convoluted and hard to break through, that someone who apparently otherwise would have been a great candidate, had to lie to get an interview. Was a good candidate really only one that had worked at the managers previous employer?

How many great candidates are companies missing out on because of arbitrary filters?

<comment><USER20> >someone who apparently otherwise would have been a great candidate

Dishonesty is an intolerable trait. This person clearly wasn't a great candidate. Lying at work is just about the only thing I'll always fire somebody for.

<comment><USER21> Everyone is lying at work to some degree. That's what office politics is all about, even though it is not straight lying.

How many times did my managers not "lie" to me by telling me that it is impossible for the company to give a raise or anything as a policy right now, while my colleague gets one one week later (sharing salary information is beautiful!)

<comment><USER20> This is really a reductio ad absurdum. But if you think your boss is dishonest with you, then go find a new boss. Dishonesty instantly destroys trust, and unless it's about something entirely trivial, it's almost impossible to restore it.

A trustless workplace cannot be functional. You can point to examples of workplaces that are dysfunctional if you like, but it's something I refuse to contribute to, or even tolerate. I don't feel an ounce of remorse for any person I've fired for dishonesty, and it's a practice I'll continue with.

Perhaps other employers are more tolerant of it than I am, but all people hate being lied to. Some people do use lies to get ahead, but it comes at the expense of integrity, and youre equally capable of getting ahead with honesty and integrity (qualities that most people like, unsurprisingly).

<comment><USER21> I think what you are really saying is that you will fire people for lies bigger than a specific "threshold", which I understand and agree with.

What I'm saying is that in the social work environment everyone lies to some level and it is actually widely accepted so. I googled exactly for 5 seconds and found this article to give you a couple examples:

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking- man/11652018/10-que...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking- man/11652018/10-questions-you-should-never-answer-honestly-at-work.html)

<comment><USER20> That's not really what I'm saying at all. Every lie you tell jeopardises the trust you have amongst others. You might not get caught, and if you do, you may not damage the trust irreparably depending on the magnitude of the lie.

I'm also saying that a workplace cannot be functional without trust, and that a workplace that tolerates dishonesty will invariably erode it. So unless you want to exist in such a workplace, you should not tolerate dishonesty either.

Finally I'm saying that dishonesty is not a prerequisite for success, and that you can be successful with integrity and honesty, and that people value those traits.

I'm not saying there's some magical threshold, which below, lies become justified. Dishonesty is not a justifiable personality trait, and trying to defend it demonstrates a lack of integrity.

You're also confusing dishonesty with a lack of 100% openness. If somebody asks your for personal information, or information they're not entitled to, there is no moral requirement to disclose it to them. This is the reductio ad absurdum I was talking about.

<comment><USER22> You ever politely laugh at something you really didn't find all that funny?

Human social interactions are built on small deceptions. Some amount of dishonesty is required if you want to avoid being an awkward social pariah. If you are incapable of any social dishonesty whatsoever, you will quickly be labeled an inappropriate, self righteous asshole.

Of course there is a limit to those social norms. Dishonesty that exceeds those limits moves from being polite to what most of us consider lying.

<comment><USER20> I'm very worried that so many people here seem to think it's impossible to be empathetic with people without being dishonest.

<comment><USER22> Surely you've had this conversation numerous times throughout your life with people who hold this opinion. You clearly disagree with it, but it's common enough that you shouldn't be surprised by it.

Philosophers have debated this question for millennia--it's nothing new.

>empathetic with people without being dishonest

Empathy and honesty are orthogonal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Backdoor references are very unethical in my opinion. Beyond the fact that you are telling a third party about someone's job search without the searcher's consent, you can also get a very biased opinion.

My wife was fired from a job at a well known University in the area. She had 2 bosses in a year, one of them twice after coming back from prolonged mental health leave. Within a month of coming back my wife's boss had a long term relationship end which lead to my wife being blamed for everything and anything, and was then subsequently fired.

On the other hand, my wife has excelled at her current job. She has been promoted 4 times at this point to a director level position and is extremely well respected. If they were to call her previous boss (who has had multiple people promoted over her in the past 2.5 years), the review would be awful and not reflective of my wife's work.

You know what would have caught this without any effort what-so-ever? Calling the company and verifying dates of employment. It is part of every job application, and is expected.

<comment><USER24> _Backdoor references are very unethical in my opinion. Beyond the fact that you are telling a third party about someone's job search without the searcher's consent, you can also get a very biased opinion._

But frontdoor references are guaranteed to be biased no one (well, almost no one) is going to use someone that didn't like them as a reference, they are going to dig up someone that will say something good about them.

We had one DBA hire that was not very good, she lasted 3 months before we had to let her go because she just couldn't do her job. One of her references didn't have much good or bad to say, but her most recent manager (where she worked for 5 years), gave a very glowing reference, outlining all of the projects that she had helped with.

It wasn't until we had let her go that we found that that while the person that gave her a glowing reference actually was her manager, she was also her roomate... and her girlfriend.

<comment><USER23> However isn't the point that references are people who have worked with you and (hopefully) managed you. By calling a backdoor reference, you may not be calling a strong relationship and getting hearsay. For all the recruiter knows, they could be calling a coworker that asked the candidate out on a date and was rejected.

The whole point of references is that given the opportunity to put your best foot forward, can you find people to vouch for you. It may fall short, but so will calling a tenuous relationship.

I did quite well at my previous job (my boss has been a reference twice, in addition to my employee who took over my position when I left), but had a another specific manager been asked, I would have received an awful review, unrelated to my job, but because he hated my boss and therefore hated me and my team. We rarely worked together, and he has little idea of my accomplishments, but it wouldn't be crazy to ask a director at my previous company for that backdoor reference.

Basically my issue is that I don't believe that backdoor references are in any way more effective than regular references, but are tremendously unethical, and could lead to false negatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm a recruiter.

Three anecdotes come to mind for this topic:

#1

I once sent out a coding test email to a candidate.

Not long after I got an email back from this candidate saying "Hey bro could you do this test for me please." or words to that effect.

Obviously mistakenly forwarded it back to me instead of to his bro who he wanted to do his coding test.

#2

I definitely got catfished but it was by another recruiter who was fishing to try to find out who my client/employer was - he was hoping I'd call the number so he could pretend to be a valid candidate and I would reveal the name of the employer. I took the issue to the job board that the resume came from, and they threatened to ban his company from advertising on their board. Never happened again as far as I know.

#3

I've got about 150,000 resumes in my candidate database. One thing I'd be interested to do is run some sort of duplicate text detecter over my candidate database.

I've definitely received resumes that duplicate text from other resumes.

<comment><USER26> I've been wondering how often #1 happens. Our coding test isn't particularly difficult but it is timeboxed, and somehow candidates pass it who take 15+ minutes to string together a for-loop when they come on-site.

<comment><USER25> Home based unsupervised coding tests are fine I think, as long as you ask the candidate to talk through their solution when they come in to meet in person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _sigh_

> Rule #2: Take a long hard look at a candidate's social profiles.

Is not having a LinkedIn account going to come back to bite me, even when applying for dev roles? I've had even senior devs at popular local dev shops say LinkedIn is a "necessary evil" because it:

1\. is easy to grep

2\. you can find whether a candidate has similar connections to you

3\. recommendations

I get New Zealand is small and the social graph for LinkedIn can be well utilised because of this but I just don't want a LinkedIn account. Is a traditional CV so bad?

<comment><USER28> In California at least, looking at an applicant's social profile can reveal information the company is not allowed to ask for or use in the hiring decision.

LinkedIn wouldn't qualify since it's a public resume, but checking out an applicant's Facebook page or Instragram would likely give rise to actionable legal claims if the applicant is rejected. This doesn't mean you'd lose, but you'd pay out a chunk of money to defend the lawsuit and other candidates would avoid your company.

<comment><USER29> LinkedIn isn't public. It is inaccessible to people like me who haven't accepted the LinkedIn Terms of Service. The formerly porous auth wall has recently been made tighter.

I wonder how this affects whatever California law you were referencing? (Honest question. I have no idea as to the answer.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't think we should use such stories as a reason to make the hiring process even more paranoid. In general people are pretty honest so I wouldn't like to see them having to jump through even more hoops because of a few fraudsters.

Advice number 1 is probably best : "Trust your gut". If something doesn't make sense it's worth clearing that up.

<comment><USER31> Depends on the culture of the people. I have experienced numerous instances where an Indian candidate is not who they claim to be. Person X is hired, person Y shows up. Person X conducts the phone interview for person Y. And so on. And this has happened for not just me.

<comment><USER30> I just experienced this with a contractor. I have never seen him do anything himself. I strongly suspect he is sending his work somewhere else.

<comment><USER32> He's a _contractor_. That's the difference between him and an employee: He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting it. If he's not allowed to do this, chances are you have an employee.

<comment><USER33> > He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting > it.

all of this is entirely within the scope of the contract.

"subcontracting" is unlikely to be permissible in a variety of scenarios, especially if the material being worked on is even vaguely sensitive.

when it does happen, it's typically in a larger organizational context and then there will usually be some vetting or approval process.

<comment><USER34> If you are controlling how work is done then you have an employee. If subcontracting is unacceptable and you are still hiring contractors then you are just trying to run around employment law, at least in the US

<comment><USER33> do you have specific citations or is this some ideological stance?

to me it makes zero sense to hire a vetted contractor who can then just toss say, classified data, over to some unknown random. it's a completely untenable proposition.

<comment><USER34> If you are requireing who can do the work and how it's done you've constrained the person into an employee-employer relationship regardless of what you decide to call. Contracts are like an interface, you are setting up an agreement on what is being provided and don't care about the implementation. When you constrain the contract so much that only a single person can fulfill the contract you are just abusing the concept of contracting.

In the example above with NDAs and security clearance that can be a perfectly valid requirement, but you can't reasonably be upset if the contractor subcontracts out to someone else with clearance who has signed the same NDA

<comment><USER33> i don't agree with your definition of contracting, but either way i'm particularly interested if you can point to some legal code that forbids a contract from containing a "no subcontracting" clause. that would be quite interesting.

<comment><USER34> I looked and couldn't find any limitations on subcontracting that werent specific to federal contracts so it likely that my personal view doesn't match up to the law

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I get catfished often.

Company X offers me a role where I have responsibilities Y and benefits Z. Promotions after a set number of time.

Times go by, still not doing Y, but intern level work. Benefits Z never appear. And that promotion? Sorry, someone needs to die or leave first, and then maybe we will hire a direct replacement.

Companies lie all the time in order to get a candidate to join.

<comment><USER36> Are you "interviewing" the company well enough when you are looking for a job?

They shouldn't be lying, but you can often pick up on these things through red flags in answers they give to your questions.

<comment><USER37> Maybe it's a local thing, but I find I rarely have time to interview the company anymore. For the most part they've a set agenda that takes up all the time. I miss the days when nobody knew how to interview. I had plenty of time to ask questions.

<comment><USER38> Any good interview process will allow—even encourage—candidates to ask questions. I've found that most interviewers are very open to me turning things around and asking them something; and judging by the way interviewers tend to love talking about their companies, I think it's been to my advantage to do so.

Yes, good interviewers often have a script; but a good script will provide time for questions and other free dialogue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> On the upside, the person who was trying to get a job seems very good at selling. Certainly, they seem good at selling themselves. If this is for a sales job, then the energy they showed should count in their favor, and the work they put in, as well as the easy social graces that charmed everyone.

I've known honest salespeople, but generally sales, as a profession, does not reward complete honesty.

The important thing would be to find out if this guy was lying to hide previous criminal behavior. That would be important to protect the current company from. But if there was no criminal behavior in this guy's past, I'd be interested in seeing if they could hook new customers as well as they hooked the hiring company.

<comment><USER40> Why? They'd eventually deceive the new customers just to make the sale, even going so far to fabricate facts and people just to do it. That's not the type of person you want bringing on new accounts at your company.

<comment><USER39> If they engage in outright fraud, then they are criminals, and they've probably been criminals in the past. That's why I emphasized the one thing to really check for is whether they are hiding a criminal past.

At one point, when I was running my own business, I worked with an alcoholic who was a good salesman. I knew that he could be toxic, so I structured an agreement such that I kept some distance between him and my company. I basically just offered him a generous finders fee. I told him if he could bring in business, I would give him a percentage. We got at least one big contract because of him.

I'm not saying that every company can or should work with such people. Every company is different. But if you know the circumstances of your company, and you think you can get useful work out of someone who has some known problems, then it is possible to structure a deal such that your company wins.

<comment><USER40> >If they engage in outright fraud, then they are criminals, and they've probably been criminals in the past.

You're assuming that they were caught _and_ convicted.

Displaying this pattern of behavior w/o a criminal history doesn't mean they won't continue said behavior in the job. It's a terrible idea to have hired this candidate and I'm not entirely certain what your motivation is for arguing otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The author is missing the most obvious rule that they should have taken away from their experience: don't use the number and email provided by the candidate. Jim's email or number is probably readily available on the company website or by calling up the front desk at the company.

<comment><USER42> Yup, if the company is big, call or email the "front desk" or 411 number of whatever and ask to talk to that specific person. There are about a zillion ways to do this properly and the poster did none of them, sheer amateur hour.

<comment><USER43> For what it's worth I have worked at places where its a fireable offense to talk to anyone about past employees. You'll be referred to our co-employer (insperity) who will only give you mm/yy of beginning and end of employment and not a word more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I know a person who has faked a position on resume to get around the whole you need experience to get hired and to get experience you need to get hired thing in marketing field and now he is super successful C level exec in Fortune 50 company so go figure.

<comment><USER30> There is a very thin line between "hustling" and outright fraud. The same behavior can result in a good career or jail time depending on luck and ability.

<comment><USER45> it all depends whether you roll a 1 or a 20, am I right? ;)

<comment><USER34> I don't know ow why you were downvoted. It was told on a joking manner but is effectively true. There were many people on here crowing about the greatness of Elizabeth Holmes even though she was a giant fraud. If people are going to ask for ridiculous requirements for well paid jobs then they should expect either A:that people will say what you want to get the position since, as this article implied, reality and what is useful to a company don't seem tied together or B:never complain about a shortage of candidates and the associated highb salaries if you are going to cultivate a list of requirements that exclude 99.99% of humanity

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > Rule #2: Take a long hard look at a candidate's social profiles.

> Rule #4: Google is your friend.

That are one of the main reasons I don't post with my real name on the Internet, and I don't have an LinkedIn account. I don't want people to interpret what I put on the Internet in their own way when it comes to the decision if they should hire me or not.

<comment><USER47> I take the opposite approach. I accept that everything I post online is public, and a chance to control my own narrative.

I would much rather fill the Internet with my own content about myself, than leave it empty for someone else to impersonate or disparage me. Additionally, I am proud of what I post publicly — otherwise I wouldn't post it.

Public personas are a professional necessity, especially in our industry. For example, what if you want to show your contributions to open source? Or your stackoverflow answers?

If you do everything online under a separate identity, then all your positive contributions are unlinkable to yourself. Yes, you can hide any "bad things" you may post from your employers. But are you really posting anything bad? Is it worth sacrificing credit for your positive contributions?

Granted there is always the "nothing to hide" counterargument. That is, it's not up for me to decide what's "bad." A potential employer could misinterpret my words, or otherwise negatively judge me based on my online profiles. But in that case it's probably better to avoid the relationship anyway.

<comment><USER48> Not a developer, but laughing at this statement:

> Public personas are a professional necessity, especially in our industry

If I wasn't on hacker news, I would assume you were an actor or a radio talk show host. Maybe you're right, and developers need to have a public persona today. But why does it need to be that way? You aren't performers. You aren't politicians.

<comment><USER47> > You aren't performers.

Aren't we though? How is a developer on a software project different than an actor on a set? How is a product requirements doc different than a movie script?

An actor can make or break a film just as a developer can make or break a software project.

I actually think there are far more parallels than differences.

<comment><USER49> Which performers are in a movie is a major factor in who chooses to view the movie. Which developers created the software is not a major factor in who uses the software for most software. The only exceptions I can think of are software that is used mainly by other software developers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The thing about checking social profiles for number of connections etc is strange to me, although maybe it makes sense in the sales world.

I have a LinkedIn but rarely log into it, most LinkedIn emails get filed into spam.

Missing good opportunities? Maybe. I dunno, it's just never been my thing.

I hope recruiters, at least for developer roles don't use LinkedIn profiles and connection count as some sort of metric in a hiring decision

<comment><USER51> I deleted my LinkedIn over a year ago and haven't looked back. It might be handy for sales folks but as a developer it's a cesspool of spammy content and dark patterns.

<comment><USER45> Yeah, I get the "opportunity of a lifetime" about once a week, maybe once every two weeks.

<comment><USER52> From a recruiter in NJ about an opportunity in CA?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> _Out of all of the possible people to choose as your fake manager, this person chose one out of the two people that I knew from Acme Corp_

Someone who I had interviewed and who turned out to be a terrible employee (we fired him after 9 months of trying to find _something_ he could do right) listed me as a reference on his resume.

Problem for him was that the hiring manager at the next place where he applied turned out to be a friend of mine.

The world's smaller than you think it is!

<comment><USER54> Well I mean, friend or no, you wouldn't have exactly been able to provide a glowing review. Of course, you can be slightly more candid with a friend.

Or did the candidate provide fake contact info for 'you' ?

<comment><USER53> This is how I answered when my friend called and asked what I thought of the guy, "Do you want my actual opinion or the Corporate Response?"

He immediately knew what I meant and said "OK, that's all I needed."

For those who don't get it, the Corporate Response (that any other person checking up would receive) would be "the employee worked in Software Development from MM/DD/YY to mm/dd/yy and was assigned xxx tasks" with no further comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> > backdoor reference checks aren't always considered kosher by everyone

?? These are the _most important_ references. Many excellent candidates won't have a back connection but when they are possible they can make an important difference two ways: One is the way described here (or, "this person was OK but doesn't sound like they would work out for the kind of thing you want -- that was where they failed with us too."). The other is the opposite, which has happened to me twice: "Oh that person? Look, if you don't take them let them know we'd really like them back" (on a candidate who barely made it through the interview but there was enough something there that we decided to do some background checking. Turned out he was simply nervous in front of people he didn't know and gave a terrible interview.). Without the background check we might have missed an excellent candidate with poor job-seeking skills.

Whenever I get a resume with a school on it that I or one of my colleagues attended I always check. I also once had an amazing candidate with 20 years experience in the lab doing just what we wanted. Their resume said that they had a degree from my schoo in X. I of course looked them up on the alum site and saw they had a degree in Y. Now both X and Y were in the set {Chemistry, Physics, Material Science, Chemical Engineering} so clearly had they simply told the truth it wouldn't have mattered -- the 20 years of experience would have said enough for anyone who actually cared about degrees after all that time. But since they lied...the resume went into the trash and the candidate was never brought in for an interview.

<comment><USER56> It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked.

In what part of the application process did the candidate consent to you letting anyone you choose know they are looking for a job?

<comment><USER57> Pardon me if this is a naïve question. Isn't the point of references that they can be checked and verified? Why would you need to obtain explicit consent to contact the contacts when they've been provided? Isn't the consent implicit by virtue of them being supplied?

<comment><USER33> > by virtue of them being supplied

afaik, a backdoor reference is specifically _not_ a reference that was (intentionally) supplied.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> You'll never be able to trust a candidate who lies.

Blatantly lying to a potential employer will never work out well in the long run. Just don't do it.

Programmers are lucky in that they can take code they've written, and say "see, here's my proof that I can do the job".Other types of jobs (like sales), however, are reputation based, and you damn well better make sure the opinion of the person who is vouching for your candidate is legitimate.

<comment><USER30> "You'll never be able to trust a candidate who lies."

This also goes the other way. I have had companies lie to me about salary structure or working conditions and it definitely hurt my loyalty when I found out that I had been lied to.

<comment><USER58> You're supposed to lie in socially acceptable ways. Preferably ones where both parties know the other is lying.

Your boss lies to you that he can't give you a raise, you lie to the hiring manager that you won't take the job without a 10% bump in pay, your VP lies that the merger won't affect headcount, etc.

<comment><USER59> None of those are socially acceptable. But I dunno, maybe you live in a shit place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> The place I'm at now forbids employees from being references for past employees (or current employees discreetly seeking other employment). Is this normal?

It would have prevented "Jim" or anyone else at ACME Corp from being a reference to catfish-er, so requests for a reference from the company would have been denied right off the bat. That would have made it harder to spot the fake.

<comment><USER61> It is fairly standard. Most of the companies would only verify if someone worked between the two dates and what was the position to avoid lawsuits.

<comment><USER62> Standard in the US maybe, but I've never even heard of anything like this in the UK. I'm sure it happens, but I will eat my hat if it's fairly standard.

<comment><USER63> Most larger companies require references to at least be checked by HR. Employers have a duty of care to provide accurate references for their former employees. There's a non-trivial risk that a manager could provide a bad or indifferent reference simply because of a personal grudge, which the company could be held liable for.

[http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1994/7.html](http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1994/7.html)

<comment><USER13> I've only had one company and 2 government jobs check my references in 25 years in the field (feds were checking for clearance, so required).

I call my references to see if they were contacted after I've been offered positions in the past it's amazing how little it happens.

I don't check references because I don't give a shit. You're either giving people that like you, or why would you be giving them at all. If you're still employed, calling that person's current job is a huge no-no (could cost them their employment).

What the fuck is so hard about just figuring out if you like someone and hiring them. Telling them fully what goals you expect them to achieve and giving them the tools to do the job. Then if they're not successful, letting them go.

Oh yeah, you'd have to be a good employee yourself and work for a good company to do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> >Rule #2: Take a long hard look at a candidate's social profiles.

That worries me if I need to enter the job market. I have no social media profile with my name attached to it. I don't enjoy the facebook/twitter/instagram style sites.

<comment><USER65> I doubt employers who search out candidates on social media are looking for good things. They're probably looking for red flags, and potentially anything could be a red flag to some people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I know a guy who catfished Forbes for years about his net worth and parlayed that into a sweet job in federal government with lifetime benefits! [1]

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me- abou...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his- wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the- tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ebb6dc7cc54)

<comment><USER67> Oh wait, I thought you were talking about this guy:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/11/07/the- cas...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/11/07/the-case-of- wilbur-ross-phantom-2-billion/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> > He impressed each interviewer with his knowledge and passion for the brand, > his sales acumen, outbound hunter mentality, and overall presence.

> Our Catfish never faltered, kept a smile on his face the entire time, and > did his homework. We even talked about sales operations, discussed the pros > and cons of MEDDIC, and talked about Salesforce workflows. I mean, this guy > was pretty good.

Sounds like they were an excellent candidate. That you let go.

<comment><USER69> They were a great candidate right up until the "lied on their resume and in job interviews, also created a fake email address and phone number to pretend to be someone else" part.

<comment><USER70> You don't know that. The only way you're going to know that is to ask why. Call him back in, tell him is skillz are the bomb, but why lie? Who knows, there _might_ be an acceptable answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This is not a catfish. This is a person lying on their resume

<comment><USER72> They also gave a fake reference number implying they were prepared to pose as someone else to social engineer. That is beyond lying on a resume.

<comment><USER73> I think he never called it? Maybe it was just an invalid number.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> I was hoping to find out from the story why this catfish lied in the first place. If they passed the interview so well they must be someway good.

<comment><USER75> In the tech world I would imagine a scenario where you don't have any professional experience in language X, you've been working only in language Y, but you've done some personal projects in language X and would like a career shift. It's hard to get a senior position without any experience.

<comment><USER76> Just do a project in language X on a professional, senior level and if you incorporate, you can write you worked for that company on that project.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> That's odd. The author defends his "backdoor reference checks" by saying he would have never caught the catfish otherwise. Then later on the same person he contacted for his "backdoor reference check" was given to him as a reference, which would have happened regardless.

<comment><USER78> Yes, but they might have naively used the given number rather than the number they personally had, out of convenience, which would have caused the catfish to succeed.

<comment><USER79> But no, the author knew Jim, if he had dialed that number and did a bit of small talk he would've known that's not Jim on the phone (unless the fake Jim is quick on his feet about pretending to be someone else).

The catfisher is stupid, he should've looked through the author's LinkedIn profile and saw that the author is connected with Jim, he would have not used Jim as a reference if he had done that.

<comment><USER78> Oh, I see what you are saying. Yeah, that is a good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Does being a catfish really matter if they passed the rest of the interview process?

<comment><USER81> If you're going to outright lie to my face & get caught, you'd better have a proof that you had discovered a brain tumor after having told the lie, pictures of the tumor being removed, and a doctor's note explaining "healthy now - no more liar liar pants on fire".

<comment><USER82> Why? Management lies to employees constantly. Sales lies to customers constantly. Why the sudden insistence on honesty?

<comment><USER40> So it's okay to lose an arm if you've already lost a leg?

Because honesty is better than dishonesty?

<comment><USER21> Ahah, that's what management tells you. While telling you at the same time that you shouldn't ask for a raise as they don't give those out this year.

<comment><USER40> So you lie to your coworkers and customers, because someone else lied to you at some point? I'm not sure I quite follow...

<comment><USER21> It is all a game in which everyone pretends to be honest, but walks a fine line of acceptable lies. I'm only reacting to the "feel good" line that everyone is honest. This is not the way it works and we should not be duped to believe that.

<comment><USER40> Believing that honest > dishonesty is not the same as being duped into believing that there are no dishonest people... This article is proof enough of that, and nobody is making that claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I know this candidate lied but them navigating the interview process so impressively appears to validate that they are good at selling......

<comment><USER48> More like: validate that they are good at lying

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Disclaimer: I not condoning any lying and misdirection.

It's interesting how we seem to tolerate plenty of lying and manipulation from managers, even more CEOs and the ads industry (ads are communication from companies) and even more from politicians.

For an unemployed person, lying might be seen as necessary not to end up homeless.

For a CEO or a politician perhaps it can be about getting marginally more support or power or money.

Again, I'm not condoning it. Yet it seems society is less forgiving with the less fortunate.

</comment><comment><USER85> I was recruiting developers for 5 years or so. We've had a few ones who managed to almost slip by like this. Almost...

The most obvious was when I started doing it, there was the one who copied a project from Github and presented as his own work. "Hey look what I built!" kind of a thing.

The problem is I like work samples (more than whiteboard algorithm puzzles), they perhaps didn't plan on that, so I got excited and start asking questions. Usually that leads to a great time and I learn a lot about their work, attitude, how well they can explain a problem etc.

Well it turns out he couldn't explain how it works. I was baffled. Here is this awesome candidate -- personable, friendly and built this great application but was having difficulty explaining the basics. So I asked my coworker during lunch. He went did some research and found the original project on GH. I felt like an idiot after that. But better me feeling like an idiot that spending months on salary and admin work only to find we got a dud.

</comment><comment><USER86> This seems to be more of a story of a flawed interview process. The author claims all the interviews when very well. This suggests their questions are not substantive enough to actually distinguish an experienced candidate from others. Alternatively, the "catfish" was amply qualified and faked references for reasons not discussed in the article.

</comment><comment><USER87> The real question is how many people normally get the job with embellished resume's, fake recommendations and friends as references. I think its quite a high percentage. I'm always honest but I think I've missed out on a lot of jobs I could easily do because I don't meet the "requirements".

<comment><USER56> There is a big difference between embellished and fake. I always assume there is some title/responsibility inflation on resumes i read, but i generally assume that those people did in fact work at those companies in those groups, etc.

</comment></comment><comment> Const-me > a catfish is someone who creates a false identity

By this definition, U.S. Marshals Service is a bunch of catfishes: [https://people.howstuffworks.com/witness- protection.htm/prin...](https://people.howstuffworks.com/witness- protection.htm/printable)

<comment><USER88> Social networks are making witness protection very risky.

For a witness the old "we know where you live" is now 100 times more plausible and threatening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> I hope the author knows that you don't need a backdoor reference check to confirm past employment.

</comment><comment><USER90> (1) I don't want to hire dishonest/unreliable/disingenuous people. I wouldn't want to work alongside them, and I prefer to distance myself from such personalities at all cost.

(2) From a job seeker's perspective, I don't want to be secretly spied on by a potential employer. I can (and often will) volunteer any information necessary, through a mutually agreed upon channel. I wouldn't want someone prying through my personal social network accounts, secretly contacting random people that may or may not know me from past workplaces. I wouldn't want a potential employer making baseless assumptions based on my social media accounts (or lack thereof).

<comment><USER91> quote: "if I didn't do my backdoor checks I would have never uncovered the Catfish."

So: the end justifies the means...

This is the way of tyranny. Unbelievable and unacceptable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> > _But, in the end, something would have slipped and the situation would have > caused repercussions six months down the line._

Sorry but I just don't believe this part. People have faked their way into high paying, high powered jobs like this before. Sometimes they're caught, but I just can't bring myself to believe that every single person gets caught every single time.

I've often thought about creating an entirely fake, nearly perfect resume for a VP or SVP job just to see if I could even get an interview, but I don't want to waste anyone's time with that and I'd be more than a little worried about the professional implications.

</comment><comment><USER93> You can call it "catfishing" like you just captured a criminal mastermind, but people of color generally don't have the reference game down and are forced into doing stuff like this in order to avoid having their application thrown in the garbage.

References are more of a "how many connected white people do you know" check than anything else. If you always had references to call on before you even finished school than you probably won't even understand the world of people who did not, and the people who didn't get that first internship and have no way to break in short of fraud.

</comment><comment><USER94> I'm so happy that I'm older and do not work in a place filled with young or insecure people all worried about making themselves look best vs. working together/pulling in each other's strengths and getting the job done awesomely. I could never work at Google or places where you exhaust yourself physically and emotionally to shine brighter then the next. Barf!!!

This manager's hiring post reads to me like a company filled with brogrammers.

</comment><comment><USER95> > The next day I received two references from the recruiter—but neither was a > manager and neither was from Acme Corp. Apparently she was still waiting for > that particular reference. Odd…but OK. Why wouldn't he have that info > readily available?

Getting ref's takes time, it is silly to think it doesn't. You need to contact the people and ask them first, and lots of people are very busy with work. You are not there priority.

<comment><USER96> apparently the contact came from an outside recruiter. not from the candidate himself. when dealing with an agency like this, the agency normally has refs in hand, in advance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> >backdoor reference check

Anyone know a good place to do one of these on myself? I have an infraction on record (traffic ticket) that apparently shows up as a misdemeanor in at least one database. I found this out during my Global Entry interview. I'd like to begin the long and painful process of unraveling this, but I don't really know where to start. It could be a problem in just one database, or in dozens.

<comment><USER73> I would be very surprised if that flags up anywhere, unless you apply for a government position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> I'm not going to defend lying on your resume, but the contours of this story are interesting -- they talked to this guy because of the fraudulent history, and then were champing at the bit to hire him, which suggests that in every other way he was a good candidate. Perhaps we're putting an excessive emphasis on the previous companies someone's worked at.

<comment><USER99> I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Based on the story itself, I have no reason to believe that they'd have dismissed him if he had been honest _and_ competent.

<comment><USER98> The story seems to suggest he was "comfortable" with him after he saw his work history, which suggested to me that an honest resume may have ended up in the trash can without any interview.

<comment><USER99> Ah, right. I can see that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER100> I really hate the so-called term "catfished" it's a completely contrived word that came from a 2010 movie that probably 50 people actually saw. "Ghosting" is another one, but at least you can use context to sort of figure out what people are actually talking about.

A bit off topic, but this adulteration of language — from an obscure pop- culture reference, is a bit silly.

Obviously the author agrees that most people don't know what the term means or he wouldn't feel compelled to explain what the heck catfishing actually means in the second paragraph.

Urban dictionary != real dictionary. I guess in another life I must have been a member of the Academie Française. Or maybe just too old to be cool.

It's so fetch apparently that I and a large number of non-Buzzfeed aficionados just don't get it.

<comment><USER101> MTV's "Catfish" series has had seven seasons so far and is shown around the world. It's not obscure at all.

<comment><USER79> But how did they get the name? From the movie.

I saw the documentary on a flight. I guess I'm part of the 6.57x10^-7 percent!

<comment><USER101> It doesn't matter where the name came from. The MTV show could be called "Sea Urchin" and it would still define the phenomenon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Lot's of candidates lie. The one test that we gave that most people copied was converting decimal to roman number. They copied the first solution that they found, variable names, etc. the few times they changed the variable names, they kept the same number of spacing, braces in same position.

So one line might have "if (...){ " where another has "if(...){"

How demanding can this be? Once money is involved, folks will do almost anything. I had to fire a recruiter once for asking me to lie. Updated my resume, sent me the updated copy with tools I don't know and have no intention of learning and said he was going to use that.

<comment><USER103> >The one test that we gave that most people copied was converting decimal to roman number.

I've read some really stupid programming questions, but that has got to be one of the top 5 stupidest.

Also, I think you mean to say "integer," as Romans didn't have the concept of "decimal."

[http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52552.html](http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52552.html)

<comment><USER73> Why stupid? As a take-home exercise it doesn't sound too bad. Won't take forever to solve but still requires some understanding of algorithms. Not as easy as FizzBuzz but also nothing you can't solve after work.

<comment><USER103> 1\. The candidate must know how roman numerals work to pass. (This was before OP said it was a take home test which makes it a little better, but ...)

2\. The question uses the term "decimal," rather than "integer." Roman numerals don't account for decimal numbers, so it's not even an accurately answerable question as posed.

3\. When you google Roman Numerals and decimal, the first link tells you this. I assume the writer didn't event attempt to google.

4\. The question will filter out candidates who don't know how roman numerals work and / or googled it to research how roman numerals work. Not only are these good candidates filtered out, but now they are telling all their other good candidate friends about that company and their stupid questions.

5\. The pool of good candidates that will respond to your opening just temporarily diminished by a few people (depending on friends in #4)

6\. For all this, the business didn't even test something that is in any way relevant to what that business does, unless that business is a digital clock face maker for smart watches or something.

If any one of these happened, that's bad. Way more thought and consideration should have gone into this question.

<comment><USER102> It was a typo. Not decimal. But whatever.

<comment><USER103> Ya, whatever. I guess you failed that test, huh? You must be a bad programmer based on that. Better luck at your next interview.

See how silly the premise is?

<comment><USER73> Isn't a quality of a software engineer to produce good code even when the specification isn't 100% correct? A lot of bad software exists because it was designed to only do what was written in the spec with no room for flexibility. Good engineers will have a dialogue with other stakeholders and clarify any issues and potential future uses.

That means, if you read decimals for roman numerals you'd ask them to clarify as there are no decimals, just integers. They'll admit the mistake and already know that you read the task properly.

<comment><USER103> Sure, a great software developer can built a solution with a simple problem definition, "We spend a lot of money communicating with stakeholders."

You have to understand though, as a good developer, if someone asks me a question like that, it strongly implies that they don't know what the hell they are even doing. Hiring managers have to be keenly aware of what their questions are implying about their companies. I don't think many give it much though other than googling, "tough interview questions."

FWIW, I've sat on both sides of that table.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> I presume an "AE role" is an account executive role - which must be a sales and relationship role?

It would seem to me that he aced his interview - he certainly sold the story!

I don't mean to imply sales is unethical btw, I know ethical sales people - but the fact they couldn't filter the prospective candidate on actual skills or knowledge, and only filtered the candidate for fabrication, seems to indicate they are hiring for people of a certain background.

The fact he gamed that is quite impressive, but it also speaks a lot about whatever the hiring criteria is.

</comment><comment><USER105> Isn't employment verification a standard part of background checks? Whenever I've gone through them, I've had to provide contact info to verify my employment at least 5 years back.

</comment><comment><USER106> Isn't a "backdoor reference check" a great way to tip off the candidate's current employer that they're looking around, and make the candidate your enemy for life?

</comment><comment><USER96> > My team and I are a pretty savvy group.

Except for the repeated evidence of an overinflated sense of self, pretty fun reading. I'm left thinking, wow, this really happens?!?

<comment><USER107> well, the story could be completely made up...

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> This read like a soft marketing material for Linkedin.

</comment><comment><USER73> Is getting a reference from your current manager considered standard? How do you get that without tipping your manager off?

</comment><comment><USER109> Wouldn't the fake reference part be easy to debunk? If applicable, call the company's generic (front desk) phone number and ask to be forwarded to XY. If the company is too large for that, use email and make sure the domain of the address you got matches the official company website.

</comment><comment><USER110> Am I the only one who was really distracted by the use of the term Catfish in every other sentence?

I've heard the term and I know there was a film called Catfish a few years about someone who created a fake identity online but I didn't realize it was such a common term.

How is a catfish different from a fraud?

</comment><comment><USER111> I am not sure why she feels it shows such a glaring hole in their recruitment process? Interviews and CVs are extremely vulnerable to lying. The only step in the process to catch liars is exactly what she did: be a bit paranoid about references.

</comment><comment><USER112> I can't imagine someone passed a software developer interview and got rejected over the bad references, or better, even having checked his references at all. Something to consider before moving to Bay Area.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd have sat down with him and told him I know he's lying, but hire him anyway because he managed to adapt to the situation and excel (which is exactly what I want from a manager).

</comment><comment><USER56> Almost every job I ever had had an intermediate step with background/biographical reference checks after I accepted the offer, but before I started.

<comment><USER73> That makes sense. Once you signed, it's easy to get a reference from your employer (at least factual). Before that it's unnecessary. Especially if there are more tests to come, I don't want 10 companies requesting references when I look for a new job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> Why would you do this? Either you can do the job or you can't... I guess if the entire job is remote you could outsource the work to someone else?

<comment><USER114> Can do the job != Can convince company to hire you

<comment><USER113> Right but if it turns out you're a fraud it'll become apparent almost immediately and they'll just... fire you. What would you gain from that?

<comment><USER114> Not much, probably it's a personality type thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER115> Good article, but please fix the site.

The stars for certain text will cover text in the article making some things "hard" to read.

</comment><comment><USER116> Why are backdoor reference checks "necessary—especially in the Bay Area"?

</comment><comment><USER117> How is this catfishing? Isn't this just attempting to lie to get a job?

</comment><comment><USER118> What is an "outbound hunter mentality"?

<comment><USER119> Cold calling, usually.

It means that they're not only working leads that come in from marketing campaigns, website, & emails (these are inbound, initiated by a potential customer). Typically means picking up the phone and calling strangers to try and sell them things (initiated by you - outbound).

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> interesting, lots of people are condemning this lying act but have no problem with the "fake it till you make it" culture

</comment><comment><USER121> Off topic, but what's an "AE"?

<comment><USER122> Account Executive, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> Isn't this the plot of Mad Men?

</comment><comment><USER124> It's all depends, for sales person, I don't care if you lies, as long as you can sell and the client happy.

</comment><comment><USER125> Coming soon to a blog near you: "I was the perfect candidate and didn't get the offer because companies hire based on who you know and where you worked, not how good you are."

Assuming that all of this is completely accurate and not at all written by someone who's a little wonky (Honestly, heart palpitations over a fucking candidate? Dude, cool your jets, man. You are waaaaaaaaay too stressed about this.) it's still an extremely unusual situation.

Anyone who uses this one--in my opinion at least partially false and possibly entirely fabricated--instance to go around giving advice about hiring has a screw loose.

The takeaways are incredibly suspect.

1\. Trust your gut.

You know what? Fuck your gut. I don't care about your gut. Or mine. Gut instincts are more often than not a thinly veiled excuse for allowing racism, sexism, and insecurity into the hiring decision. Instead of something murky and nebulous like a gut instinct, try having a process instead. And follow it, even if it disagrees with your gut.

2\. Social profile

Fuck that too. Social profiles are bullshit. LinkedIn is a bullshit predictor of anything and a bullshit indicator of past performance. So is GitHub.

3\. References--given or backdoor

Fuck this too. References are meaningless. Don't bother. The references a candidate gives you are going to be at least neutral if not glowing. Extremely few people are dumb enough to give bad references. Backdoor references are extremely unethical. References are noise, not signal.

4\. Stalk your candidates online looking for anything suspicious.

Wait for it . . . .

Fuck this too. If you dig deep enough, you'll find something wrong with everyone.

The author says he doesn't know what would've happened if he'd gone ahead with the hire. I do. The author would've continued the neurotic and unhealthy behavior displayed in the article. He would've continued to be the kind of boss who makes decisions based on his gut regardless of anything else a situation might be calling for. He would've brought the candidate into a toxic work environment run by a person who is entirely too emotionally involved with his job. The author would probably have ended up firing the candidate and then later refused to acknowledge that he ever worked there when future companies called for references.

In my opinion, every element of this article is extremely suspect. From the veracity of the facts therein to the takeaways based on them, it all smells a little . . . fishy. My main takeaway is that I should remember to never apply to work at this company. But then again, that's just my gut talking.

</comment><comment><USER126> tl;dr: A guy tried to social engineer a recruiter by providing fake references and creating fake profiles. The recruiter verified the references through contacts in the mentioned companies.

A better conclusion for this unnecessarily long article: pay for a background check including employment verification once the candidate passes all interview rounds.

</comment><comment><USER127> > We even talked about sales operations, discussed the pros and cons of > MEDDIC, and talked about Salesforce workflows. I mean, this guy was pretty > good.

> Maybe he wouldn't have even known how to log into Salesforce.

I think the author is just a pretty bad interviewer.

</comment><comment><USER128> For everyone that fakes their way through an interview, there's a job ad that was a bait-and-switch anyway. That is just how the game is played now. I don't like it either, but don't hate the player.

</comment><comment><USER129> Catfishing can be the only way to get a job. The article author clearly reinforces this by explicitly stating that he was attracted to this candidate on the basis of their pedigree.

Here is a person that would've otherwise been fine but their only qualification missing was something outside of their control -- repeat, someone that would've otherwise been a qualified candidate. Is the tech industry driven by merit or is it driven by nepotism? You decide.

</comment><comment><USER130> Tip #3 is pretty silly. Lots of people don't use LinkedIn, it's a horrible site, and a LinkedIn profile isn't proof of anything.

Spend more time talking to your candidates and ask for real references. Don't trust phone numbers and emails given by the candidate, if someone references someone who works at a company then contact the company through their public contact methods.

</comment><comment><USER131> Very upbeat narrative, guy sounds so proud of himself. Also very short sentences, is it usual to write so naively, perhaps a kind of mannerism meaning to be true?

</comment><comment><USER82> _Maybe he would have been great and our best performing AE. Maybe he wouldn't have even known how to log into Salesforce. Or, even worse, maybe he would have been dishonest about something down the line. Whatever the outcome, better to suss it out early._

So, the person appeared competent and capable, and "may have been our best performing AE" but it's "better to suss it out early" by immediately rejecting him?

Sounds like they should have considered some sort of short-term contact to evaluate the guy. Instead, their ego was bruised, so they rejected him and patted themselves on the back.

<comment><USER132> Your stance is that they should have hired the guy who blatantly misrepresented himself to them?

Hard disagree, even if this guy is the best that ever was, he's shown his true colors. The second it's beneficial to him, he'll lie again.

<comment><USER82> My position is that, in his own words, the applicant "may have been our best performing AE", but the solution was to reject him.

As for misrepresenting oneself, what's the actual problem? If he's got the ability to do the job, who cares if he lied to get through the Byzantine interview process? And, as I already said, _employers (management) lie all the time_.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: CRM – Which one do you use? - <AUTHOR> We're a small startup. Currently we are using Pipedrive but as far as I can tell, they don't offer insightful reporting. We don't want to break the bank and move over to Salesforce just yet.<p>What would you recommend? <comment><USER2> What does insightful mean to you? Pipedrive just upgraded their reporting a major way last month. It was not bad before, but now it is pretty slick.</comment>


How To Reply To Angel Investor Intros - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eladgil.com/2011/11/how-to-reply-to-angel-investor-intro.html

<comment><USER2> Great info. I feel kinda sad that this did not make into the first page.</comment>


Should I work for free? (Flowchart) - <AUTHOR> http://shouldiworkforfree.com/

<comment><USER2> Many comments from when this was last submitted:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2098332></comment>


The information industry will transform within the next years - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/life-tips/the-masterplan-d40640a3b2fc#.55yzlrrmi <comment><USER2> "90% of the world's data were created in the last 12 months." Wow i didn't know that!

<comment><AUTHOR> Insane, right?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Would love to help, if you have any questions! :)</comment>


Show HN: Cleverflow - an online visual project management board - <AUTHOR> https://www.cleverflow.co

<comment><AUTHOR> This is actually a minimum viable product (MVP), with lots of crucial features omitted on purpose. The idea is building an online project management board with features targeted to software development teams (API, integrations, Kanban features such as WIP and lead time metrics etc.). We really appreciate any feedback: what features do you need in such an application, what is wrong in current implementation etc.

<comment><USER2> What _I_ want, (and this may not be your bag), is a management system that I can use in a classroom. I try to organize my courses around projects (vocational 2yr college). I'd like to use real project management tools, but most that I have tried just end up making my like harder.

I need to schedule meetings, events (class time, exams). I'd love to be able to do it in batches, and have Google cal, ical, etc as output.

I need to be able to issue and track identical tasks, progress for each student/worker/programmer, and also issue tasks as a batch.

I'd love to be able to generate a Gantt chart-ish looking syllabus that could be updated as the semester progressed (and also other views).

<comment><AUTHOR> Well this is definitely not our bag, I think you need a rather specific product. Hopefully some more people have the same needs as you do and such a product gets built! We are currently trying to only target our product to software development teams as, being a software development team ourselves, we have more chances to have the same needs as they do and build the right product. Of course the targeting might change in the future, depending on the success with the MVP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why should I use Cleverflow instead of Trello? It seems just a different design.

<comment><AUTHOR> Trello is horizontal product, targeted to a very wide audience, basically anyone. Cleverflow is targeted to software development teams. Of course I do understand the confusion, as we do not yet have almost any features specific to software development. But is is only an MVP and the main goal currently is to collect feedback and figure out the features we need to build to cater for the needs of software development teams.</comment></comment>


Homemade Memristor (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://sparkbangbuzz.com/memristor/memristor.htm <comment><USER2> Another source on what appears to be the same sulfur compound with some more curves: [http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/making-a- memristor/](http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/making-a-memristor/)

Is anyone aware of a good simulator for one of these curve tracers? I understand the idea of a memristor, but it's not immediately intuitive to me why it should make this particular shape (and I'm unsure which "arm" of the eight is taken when the voltage is going up and when it is going down -- I assume the bottom is traveled upwards and the top is traveled downwards). It would be nice to see one animated or with a third time dimension. (The figure eight is more apparent in the link I mentioned above, although you can see it in this submission once you know what you're looking for.)

<comment><USER3> The family of these materials are often referred to as chalcogenides (although strictly speaking they don't always include only metals from that periodic group). They've been investigated quite a bit for use in phase change memory if you have access to academic journals (I could probably root around later and see what's not behind a paywall).

The strange looking curve is really kind of two parts forward biasing/reverse biasing. Assuming you're starting from a virgin device you move along the curve where you're sweeping the voltage upwards but not really getting much increase in current (since there's no real channel yet). In these materials the mechanism is the establishment of little "fingers" of metal migrating and completing the circuit. As the "fingers" move forward you suddenly start seeing more and more current without increasing voltage (your effective resistance is dropping) and then jumps up as the connection is made. Eventually you sweep the voltage backwards. Something similar happens in the part of the AC curve in reverse.

There is a really good diagram in this paper: "Mechanism for resistive switching in chalcogenide-based electrochemical metallization memory cells" from Zhuge et al [http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/5/5/10.106...](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/5/5/10.1063/1.4921089)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I love it! "I found some smelly corroded metal objects, so I must investigate their electrical properties."

Serendipitous science at its best! Or, how to increase your luck surface area.

<comment><USER2> Cat's whisker diodes and the initial discovery of the LED are other good examples of this. Connect a small wire to the right kind of rock (or rusty old razor blade) just right and you get a diode. If you get it just perfect (and use the right kind of rock) you'll even get a faint LED.

<comment><USER5> For those who want to experiment with their own LEDs, they should check out:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20120913060200/http://neazoi.com...](https://web.archive.org/web/20120913060200/http://neazoi.com/homemadeled/index.htm)

<comment><USER6> This is also a neat place to start with making your own OLEDs. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAgRF8TibJ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAgRF8TibJ0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Be sure to check out the rest of this guys stuff, like the homemade CRT, flame triode, magnetic amplifiers, etc.

[http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/](http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Ah, 90s web design, replete with a link urging the reader to "Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!"

I miss the old web.

<comment><USER8> The page is under 5KB and loads quickly, it's content-full and isn't over- designed. A quick look at the source shows that it's hand-written. Very nice indeed.

Funny that browsers now need to have a special "reader mode" specifically to make pages look like this.

<comment><USER9> Completing the circle isn't it. The web 2.0 experiment concludes that old mail and html3 were actually fine for actually useful browsing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The IBM 1401 restoration team found some corroded germanium transistors that seemed to show memristor-like behavior: [http://ibm-1401.info/GermaniumAlloy.html#CommentsGarner](http://ibm-1401.info/GermaniumAlloy.html#CommentsGarner) (scroll to the p.s.) If anyone can explain this behavior, they would be grateful.

To change topic, progress on memristors seems painfully slow. In comparison, it took just 10 years from the invention of the transistor until IBM's president forced the company to give up tubes and switch to transistors. And it was just 4 years from the invention of the first IC until NASA decided to use them in the Apollo Guidance Computer and landed them on the moon a few years later.

<comment><USER11> > To change topic, progress on memristors seems painfully slow.

I think that's a little unfair. They were first shown just 7 years ago, and have already been used to build (extremely) simple neural networks.

Transistors took ~6 years before they were sold in commercial products, and you can already buy a memristor on a chip.

When transistors were invented, ENIAC was around and had ~18,000 vacuum tubes, and was the kind of thing _governments_ built. In 2008 you could wander into a shop and pick up something like this: [http://ark.intel.com/products/37147](http://ark.intel.com/products/37147) which has 730 million transistors.

I think it's understandable that it'll take a bit longer for memristors to overtake transistor based processors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Associated youtube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlswP_qXbdA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlswP_qXbdA)

not sure why it's not linked on the website

</comment><comment><USER13> Neat, he's even got the pinched hysteresis loop going on.

The first talk I ever gave was on Memristors at a Rochester Bar Camp in '09 as a college freshman: [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1GVqEeFUJyI7VmzqYPabQ...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1GVqEeFUJyI7VmzqYPabQ9DOC32rdQv- YN3YCzO6vvlY/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000#slide=id.p4)

</comment><comment><USER9> Do memristor have MTBF ?

<comment><USER14> Yes. Since the mechanism for memristors is either phase-change or filament production (by ion conduction), they eventually fail, basically just becoming a normal resistor. The number of cycles of some experimental devices is very high, though I don't know if anyone has done a true MTBF study on one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Mirror: [http://obtainable-animal.surge.sh/memristor.htm](http://obtainable- animal.surge.sh/memristor.htm)</comment>


Thin Film Turns Any Surface Into a Touchscreen - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/thin-film-touchscreen/

<comment><USER2> Inaccurate title: Thin _Bendable_ transparent film allows input over any surface.

All a touch screen is a piece of touch glass over a screen....

Touch glass already exists, the newsworthy bit is that it is bendable.

<comment><USER3> Inaccurate pedantry: _Imprecise_ title: Thin _Bendable_ transparent film allows input over any surface.

</tongue in cheek>

<comment><USER2> While it is also imprecise, the fact that the film is only an input surface means it's also inaccurate. To make a touch _screen_ , you must have a screen.

</since you went there :Op>

I was commenting on both the inaccurate nature of the title as well as the fact it does not point out the newsworthy, new tech part that HN readers likely give a crap about.

<comment><USER3> Touche, sir :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That is pretty cool. Article titles should start distinguishing between touchscreen and multi-touch screens, however. The usability of multi-touch input is, IMO, much better than that of single-touch input (essentially just mouse emulation), so the differentiation between the two is important. For me, it's the difference between me caring and not caring.</comment>


The singularity is not near: the human brain as a Boson sampler - <AUTHOR> http://quantumfrontiers.com/2014/08/20/the-singularity-is-not-near-the-human-brain-as-a-boson-sampler/

<comment><USER2> I agree with the only skeptic quote in the article:

> _If I ever broached this topic at a dinner party, my biologist friends would > retort: "but the brain is warm and wet, good luck managing decoherence."_

There is some quantum coherence in small molecules in photosynthesis, but in a system of the size of the brain it's almost impossible (perhaps at 10^{-10}K?). The rest is only speculations. In other words [http://xkcd.com/1240/](http://xkcd.com/1240/)

</comment><comment><USER3> What's with this insistence in finding magical properties in human brains? We are not special, or magical. And, most important than that, we don't need to emulate every subatomic property of an organic brain to create human-level AI.</comment>


How Do I Compete With *THAT*? - Interesting discussion thread - <AUTHOR> http://www.startupping.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207 <comment><USER2> It looks terrible, it has no useful features, it has no users nor will it ever have any users because it provides no value to users. If you can't compete with that then it's not a good sign.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but there's _two_:

<http://www.socializr.com/> <http://www.socializer.com/>

So now they have an evil triplet. He should call it MySocializr.com</comment></comment>