If solar prices continue as they have for another 3-5 years, the question is going to be pretty clear, how do we store all of this insanely cheap power. I'm a little mystified we're not taxing carbon emissions and subsidizing storage. But hey, there are clearly powerful forces at play, that don't agree with me.
It looks like solar is starting to become an inevitability.
If solar is cheaper, and scales well (i.e. you can just keep deploying it, pretty much anywhere, and have it get cheaper the more you do) then all the smart money is going to go to building as much PV as quickly as possible. There'll be no one willing to invest in coal-plants because they'll be looking at the on-going costs, looking at the up-front costs, placement issues, build-times, risk of actual action on carbon pricing and saying "you know what, let's build out solar instead".
Comparing the photo-voltaic capacity installed in 2016 with wind capacity is a bit misleading, as wind typically has a much higher capacity factor than solar - so the 59GW of wind will almost certainly produce more electricity than the 70GW of solar.
The Photosynthesis enzyme in plant leaves captures photons that are converted to electrons with energy stored chemically in carbohydrates. Animals eat the chemical energy created by plants as well as other animals. Animals use oxygen to oxidize the carbohydrates to create energy.
What would the cost of living fall to if energy costs were $0?
What my shop was pushing was using solar collectors to heat hot water. That was about 20% of the average residential energy bill, had a relatively low up front cost, and a relatively short payback period. We were aware of and tracked a variety of alternative energy sources including photovoltaics, but expected them to get niche pickup at best because they were simply too expensive. To a large extent, that's still the case.
Another point to note is that energy usage isn't just electricity. Back then, a national energy budget divided roughly into quarters, with industrial heating and cooling, residential/light commercial heating and cooling, transportation, and electricity making up the demand. The total amount of energy consumed is rather larger, but that breakdown is still pretty much the same. I don't see solar electric power addressing things like heavy duty heating and cooling, nor most transportation.
One thing I got convinced of back then is that the form of energy used will be the cheapest that will do the job. Energy from fossil fuel still predominates because it is still cheapest.
Solar is still essentially a niche market, though growing, and lower costs are the driver. I was grimly amused a while back over the woes of Solyndra, an effort to create large scale photovoltiac production in the US, that got about half a billion in government funding. The underlying notion was creation of US jobs.
Photovoltaics is semi-conductor electronics, the Chinese jumped in with both feet, and started turning out solar cells at prices domestic producers couldn't match. In fact, some Chinese producers came to grief. They dove in based on demand estimates that were unfounded, produced a glut on the market, far lower prices for buyers, and failures among firms that were late to the manufacturing party. Solyndra couldn't compete.
People went on about US jobs, and I thought "Drive on the NJ Turnpike, and every other pole has a solar cell array generating power to help run the Turnpike. Somebody has the contract to design, produce, install and maintain those arrays, and those jobs by nature will be local. Decreasing costs for the raw materials used to produce the arrays made it possible to sell the end products cheaper, and increased the demand. The Chinese can do it cheapest and can have solar cell production. The money is in moving up the value chain and making things people will buy that use those solar cells."
I'm delighted to see solar electricity costs dropping to the reported levels, but anyone who sees it as a solution for overall energy woes isn't looking at a big enough picture.______Dennis
Photovoltaics is semi-conductor electronics, the Chinese jumped in with both feet, and started turning out solar cells at prices domestic producers couldn't match. In fact, some Chinese producers came to grief. They dove in based on demand estimates that were unfounded, produced a glut on the market, far lower pricers for buyers, and failures among firms that were late to the manufacturing party.
... and also why natural gas will always win, and why coal is getting shut down.
That might really change things.
Everyone has been complaining about Elsevier for years now. They still have publications and they still seem to have no problem to fill them. That's the problem.
Elsevier had been buying academic journals for decades. A typical scheme is like Cell's story.
A professor establishes a journal under a big university's publishing arm. Then the professor thinks how to make money. Elsevier makes an offer and the professor accepts it. The journal becomes the property of Elsevier and the editors keep reviewing papers for free because it's good for their CVs.
Looking at older HN posts, Elsevier becomes another Comcast. That said, boycotts have not reversed the Group's profit trend.
There are multiple problems with the offer from VG Wort (which is the German association "representing" authors and publishers). One is that they raised the license fee. Another one is that they want to replace the current "flatrate" (where a university pays a fixed sum for the right to copy books or parts of books for education) with a individual billing concept. That means, lecturers have to report to administration for EACH part of a book or paper that they distribute. This model is not feasible as the administrative costs exceed the royalties which have to be payed for the copyright.
For this reasons, multiple virtual learning environments (which are used to distribute books and papers) in Germany might go offline in 2017 because the copyright situation is currently unclear.
More information (in German):https://netzpolitik.org/2016/deutsche-universitaeten-2017-im...
"The DEAL project, headed by HRK (German Rectors' Conference) President Prof Hippler, is negotiating a nationwide license agreement for the entire electronic Elsevier journal portfolio with Elsevier.[...]In order to improve their negotiating power, about 60 major German research institutions including Gttingen University cancelled their contracts with Elsevier as early as October 2016."
Why are these publishers needed? What service do they provide these days? It seems their role is similar to publishers in other media (TV, movie, music, etc) that can and have been replaced due to the distribution ease of the internet. Aside from a distribution platform, what do these publishers provide?
If you really want to strike at a particular journal or family of journals, you could work to convince academics not to cite articles in those journals. Since all these metrics are some variant of (inward citations)/(publications), usually over a 2-5 year window, this would have a tremendous effect.
(Assuming, of course, that no agreement will be reached at all.)
Why wouldn't blockchain db for receiving and requesting p2p reviews not a good solution? This journal can be open access and still make boat loads of money on allied services, ads and so much more. The best part, most of this can/needs to be automated leading to super low costs of operation.
Am I missing something obvious here?
Many of them were excited about this. Germany's making moves in the right direction.
Its basically a scam, and its holding back scientific progress.
This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal. If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working?
This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.
Prior to UBI, the lowest possible income is zero. After UBI, the lowest income is X. The poorest people in the nation will have an income of X, so X becomes the new relative zero, the new baseline. Prices of everything (food, housing, whatever) will reset relative to X. So uni will become worthless shortly after it's introduced.... but only if it is truly universal.
Someone feel free to tell me if I'm missing something.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US.
I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work more, that would be a huge, huge improvement.
That last part is huge. A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without this in it to see how a people react.
This looks like a very important test for the viability of UBI.
This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow.
The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn't be able to exploit human beings, as all capitalist systems do. That's it. That's their whole argument. The rest is just dressing it up with empty moral questions about "giving away the fish instead of teaching how to fish".
Starting with numbers: about 204M working age population in the US - hence the USD10K to each of them example would just make somewhere what is spend yearly for military and banks - the 8 times numbers cited in the article of what is spent today does not make any sense.
The linked article does not mention any amounts that Finland wants to provide to the 2k people - instead it is referring to Swiss calculations - last numbers I've heard with Finland were on par with current social security / poverty level pays (~EUR600 p/m) - this of course does not enable most of the key effects intended with an UBI (money into spending, freedom of choice for work etc) - it only continues the current system (with some potential savings within the administration).
To get a better understanding we have to at least repeat the Canadian experiments from the 1920s (proven that it is substantially beneficiary for the economy overall) - more money than poverty level, people must gain freedom by the possibility to live.
Given that soon a large proportion of people will not have a chance to find a job that will allow them to survive, we either go back to lords and serfs or actually look into potentially sustainable solutions.
For most of history, governments addressed unemployment by starting wars. By shipping off to war, the unemployed temporarily get a job. They either come back dead or ready to take a new job in an economy revitalized by the stimulus of government war spending.
John Maynard Keynes noticed this pattern, especially during the Great Depression and WW2, and made a brilliant suggestion: continue with these government interventions, but keep the government spending and drop the war part. We call it "Keynesian economics", but really, what Keynes invented was capitalist peace. And guess what, since then, no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's. 
We need a Keynesian boost today, not because of technological progress, but rather the contrary: the rapid technological progress of the 20th century that brought tremendous economic prosperity to humanity has finally come to a grinding halt. Let's stop denying this. The stream of lifechanging breakthrough inventions of the 20th century, from A (antibiotics) to Z (zippers), have ended. As a result, we now suffer from secular stagnation, something Keynes understood very well back then, and Larry Summers understands in the present. 
It's especially absurd to claim that automation is the cause of this. Automation has already upended society: it was called the Industrial Revolution and happened 200 years ago. The upheaval caused then to human lives and employment was far more dramatic than anything happening today.
And basic income is simply the most fair way to apply Keynesian policy. It is more fair to split the money up and distribute it equally to every individual than it is for the government to buy things on their behalf. Highly distributed spending will also avoid creating market distortions and liquidity traps.  And the resulting economic boost will lead to increased tax revenues and, who knows, maybe more jobs -- this time not subject to labor market distortions caused by people being desperate for work.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-stagna... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap
There are plenty of entrepreneurs requiring people of various backgrounds, but these are generally unpaid positions. I am currently writing a web-app for a charity, and have just launched a customised wordpress site for a new business. These are of course unpaid, and like the article states, it's not worth the risk of starting my own business (being a freelancer for example) as it would mean coming off benefits completely and hoping you'll make enough to pay for everything you need to pay for. UBA would suit me great. I could become that freelancer instantly, and with no fear. That company, who's website I just launched wanted to pay me, but legally it was impossible due to the reason I just mentioned (freelancing).
I'm also currently writing a language learning app, a mashup of my favourite features of DuoLingo and Memrise in my free time. Perhaps monetising that in some way may lead me out of this stagnation.
Finland is going to selecting 2,000 unemployed individuals, at random, and offering them cash without strings. Current unemployment schemes, they believe, hold back individuals from finding part time work / any work because the benefits outweigh the job opportunities. They hope that this new scheme promotes people to take work and have an adequate safety net to prevent homelessness and hunger.
If you just pay everyone X amount of money every month for whatever, it just means that in order to produce something you'll need to pay someone a lot more than that X amount in order to work and produce it and also it means that that item is gonna increase massively in cost in order to pay the items production itself.
I am highly against that idea.
You want to solve issues? Give free food/water and shelter for survival, thats all a human needs. It doesn't need to be a food from a chef or Evian water or a house with even an internet connection. All it needs is just to provide some safety that that person is not going to die of starvation or weather. Other than that if you want to have a better have and lifestyle well you have to work for it.
Voters in Switzerland recently rejected a basic-income scheme
The government is eager to see what happens next. Will more people pursue jobs or start businesses? How many will stop working and squander their money on vodka? Will those liberated from the time-sucking entanglements of the unemployment system use their freedom to gain education, setting themselves up for promising new careers? These areas of inquiry extend beyond economic policy, into the realm of human nature.
I am not a fan of the idea of universal basic income, but I would love to see the existing social safety net system get tweaked to be less retarded. I hope this experiment goes good places.
I think we're a long way off from total automation of most industries.
Doesn't sound very universal. One of the big factors that make it a good idea is that receiving the basic income shouldn't make you disincentivized from doing more and getting a job, etc. Otherwise, how is it different from existing welfare programs and such?
I heard/read Swiss denied this proposal though, what a shame.
Hiding behind the money illusion doesn't fool anybody for long.
Anything except universal basic income. You want cigarettes / alcohol? do some work on the internet. Amazon mechanical turk.
Square cube law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law
: Okay maybe not a very rich king but but you'd definitely be doing more than fine.
Oh, and this is the most positive non-opinion piece I've seen on UBI in a major publication, people! How's that?
Somebody's going to have to pay for this...
Remember Bio-Fuel? How progressive and wonderful it was suppose to be? Until it caused a global food shortage and suddenly none of the media ever talked about it again.
Large companies are getting larger. There are only a couple of choices in any category, and single companies own many different markets. When you combine that with UBI, you have the government handing you a check, and then you have a choice of a couple of companies to spend that money. The difference between this world and communism is almost nothing.
I have never heard of any group of people who were happy on government welfare. Whatever the supposed problem this is supposed to address, it is not a solution. People who are not working at all are not happy.
If I were to guess, I would say the real problems that need to be addressed are:
too many extremely large companies, often supported by laws they lobbied to create.
corrupt government that has no interest in its own country
I mean, many of these people proposing UBI are living in countries where they are actively increasing the population. If you have an unemployment problem, why are you increasing the population?
The common advice in all the classic texts is that developers should not roll their own crypto because smarter people have thought of more vulnerabilities and addressed them in battle-tested code.
But news like this shows that there is an antithesis: the conventional encryption techniques are also potentially widely exploitable by state-level actors. Furthermore if I was someone holding solutions to cherry-picked primes for well-understood algorithms in wide use, I'd be complaining loudly every time someone wrote a bespoke library too. I'd be paying to publish books that recommend no one write their own crypto because it's just such a darned hard problem, especially with so many high quality alternatives out there tested and ready to go.
Granted, one should certainly have a repulsion to to writing custom crypto for all of the many good reasons, but it makes me think it's worth putting in more than the minimal effort into it, especially when lives are on the line.
Some of their advice seemed useful but some of their suggestions absurd and conclusions naive. The most interesting thing was that challenging them on their assertions (anti-virus is only n% effective) didn't result in any facts to back up the assertions. Instead they'd just mock the challenger and say things like "no matter what you do we can crack your systems in n minutes, regardless".
In fact one of their suggestions was to simply fire anyone who didn't have like-minded world views. People who didn't just nod along with whatever they had to say were the problem and needed to go. If that's how the intelligence community works I can see why they are in an echo chamber that justifies their any means necessary approach to intelligence gathering.
I wonder what the minimum are today! (Article was from 2015)
I mean my guess is that they're investing more in how to engineer software used by such things.
IOW, we have to assume they're doing it, and have been for at least as long as this paper has been out.
This would have been around 2001-2002.
this line made me chuckle.
1) They are typically more expensive than "market" for the same role a younger person can fulfill at acceptable tradeoff of competency - higher salaries, higher related costs like healthcare for a family, expectations around retirement programs, etc.
2) They are less flexible - they are less willing to relocate, they have kids to pick up instead of "beer hour bonding", unwilling to run the same 60 hour gauntlet that a 25 year old can etc.
3) They have less primary & secondary education relevant to today's enterprise issues. In the specific case of "marketers" - like TryOldster is pitching - the best people will learn anything, but anybody over 50 years old spent their professional training + formative 20s thinking about television, radio, and print - not paid search, mobile advertising, and social.
That we're at the top of HN again with another "hire older people" post (recently we saw OldGeekJobs) demonstrates there's a huge unmet need within this cohort.
I don't think a job-board is the right solution to this problem because the pitch on TryOldster does nothing to alleviate the three principal concerns.
My unasked, probably asinine business advice would be to turn this flow of traffic into a training / education platform where you can VALIDATE and address the very real, foundational concerns of hiring managers around this cohort, and suddenly you've got a machine that can get motivated people trained and placed.
Older programmers are worthless, simply due to their age? Ridiculous. I hope to someday be as skillful as this guy.
In my country we have a saying: the Devil knows more from being old than from being the Devil.
1) As a software person your are employed to Solve Business Problems - NOT to write code, NOT to write tests, NOT to hack on platforms, NOT to be Agile. Solve the problem (or add the feature) - never lose sight of this. The value you bring is directly related to this.
2) People outside software development don't give a flying f* about most issues software related - but everyone has a computer, so most are poorly informed about technology and terrible at making right software choices - build products accordingly.
I see my friends from the same age group go different ways; quite a number stay in tech as employees, getting more senior and climbing the engineer ladder. They're the ones who are affected by age discrimination, particularly as they get into their 50's and over.
The other group takes what they know in tech, and become a super experienced tech-guy in another industry, doing things like machine automation at car manufacturing plants, or optical quality control at meat packing plants, etc. They use their skills in other industries, but by silicon valley standards, they leave tech, since making pistons or making sure chicken breasts don't contain wing aren't tech problems. This second group of people don't stress anywhere near as much about their jobs as the first group, but their highest attainable pay wherever they work is definitely lower.
The third group retires early and pursues their dreams, but they're not worth talking about in this context. Tech is amazing in that it enables people who are moderately successful to retire earlier.
Of course, if you simply rebranded to talk about "experience" rather than "age" then solvelem probbed.
Also, age != experience != skill.
There is ageism and it's completely unfounded, but some recruiting leans towards younger workers for whatever reason.
I think this is similar to H1-B's getting jobs for lower wages. Companies tend to believe that adding X developers to problem Y will produce a better/quicker product. They believe this of younger workers at times as well.
They are always wrong. I'm pretty sure my 40 hours is significantly more productive than most 25 year old's 60 or even 80 hours.
1. older folks are less flexible, can't relocate, etc. When we have kids in high school, that's valid. But high school doesn't go on forever.
2. older folks cost more. You'd be surprised. Salary doesn't have to be an always-upward ratchet. There are plenty of us who are able and willing -- even delighted -- to work for less than the executive-level pay of the biggest jobs on our resumes.
Unlike many of our juniors, we aren't scrambling to pay off our edu loans any more, nor are we scrambling to cover those costs for our kids, or pay big mortgages.
You know that dream about being motivated by the work, not the money? It's a real thing. Many of us are living that dream.
3. older folks are a protected class (in USA, anyhow). That's true. We are nominally harder to lay off when things get rough. But we've been through a few cycles of things being good, then bad, then good, and we've survived. We are as willing as anybody to stop drawing our pay when things aren't going well. Some of us are willing to agree to that in advance. Ask whether we'll accept contractor status, rather than employee status.
See item 2 about being motivated by the work.
4. older folks drive up health insurance pool costs. true. sucks. But I, for one, am on my spouse's insurance so the startup I'm with doesn't have that problem. Many of us have similar setups. You can't ask in an interview, but we can tell you voluntarily. Plus, when we hit 65 (in USA) we go on this decent national single-payer health plan and out of your pool altogether.
5. older folks can't manage 80-hour work weeks. Of course we can manage crunch time. We've done a lot of it, and we're skilled at getting it done.
Can we manage sustained 80-hour weeks for years at a time? No. Neither can you and keep your quality up.
6. older folks' skills are obsolete. Not true. Maybe that was true once, but many of us put a lot of work into keeping up to date. Safari Books Online, and online tutorials, and community / dev versions of various tools, have made that possible.
7. older folks would rather play golf than work. For many of us, that's just nonsense.
So, don't just screen out that resume showing a MS degree from 1980. Take a look.
Thankfully for my next job, while the staff is still older, they work smart instead working hard.
In order to keep their labor costs depressed, VCs are incentivized to promote the lie that a very young workforce is an inherent asset, but there is simply no replacement for experience. As the industry continues to mature, that will be self-evident, as it is in all other mature industries.
What I have observed first hand is that if the job requirements are relatively stable then older people are fantastic, but if the requirements change from month to month (or week to week) then they struggle. As I know from personal experience fluid intelligence declines with age and as you get older rapid change gets increasing difficult to deal with. I wish it were otherwise :(
There are of course exceptions, the problem is that it is really hard to know who can adapt to rapid change in an interview or from a CV. A service that could test the fluid intelligence of job candidates would be very valuable, but it would almost certainly be sued out of existence for discriminating against older employees.
Why go with "A Qureshi Media startup. Contact us at email@example.com" in the site footer?
It made me wonder "hmm, why haven't I heard of Qureshi Media, let me check them out, they are probably some huge media conglomerate." To my surprise, http://qureshimedia.com/ appears to be the website of a consultancy that includes the less than inspiring text "Our new site will be up soon."
If you are managing multiple established brands, having that in the site footer makes sense to me. For what appears to be a company's only brand, I wonder if it might be better relegated an "About" page. Thoughts?
Best way to predict the future is create it right?
An experienced engineer, who can prevent the above is worth their weight in gold.
Because ultimately, the fundamentals of software engineering haven't changed for decades, like abstraction, modularization etc
We power many many branded niche staffing firm career portals. There are basically niche job boards but with recruiters backing it. For example I believe there is one just for retired nurses. It is very akin to all the different dating services.
It is absolutely amazing how many of them there are and how well they still do despite Indeed and Linkedin.
I imagine one of the major staffing firms (randstad, manpower, etc) will probably pick up this niche soon. Probably through an acquisition. The major staffing firms have thousands of niche job boards.
WTG putting this message together, good luck!
Venues which seem to explicitly encourage candidates/jobseekers to focus on age violate the spirit of the law if not the letter (29 U.S.C. 626).
Also, as you get older: LEARN TO WEAR A SUIT. Not all the time - suits are going-out clothes, not things you waste on an office - but every now and then show that you can present well and be convincing. Your stock with the non-techies in the office will go through the roof.
I'm a 37 year old self-taught backend dev (a fallen physicist) and I seem to be able to talk myself into a job with relative ease, both big and small companies.
I worry sometimes that a significant factor in this is that I still look and dress relatively young. I think this body has about 5 more years before it starts to look unambiguously like a grownup.
I wonder if there's a broader solution to the problem that might involve more outreach and educational efforts to communicate to the younger folk that us oldsters have something valuable to offer, despite our encroaching senility and decrepitude :)
Perhaps however, the proof's in the pudding. Nudge some of the bigger corps. like Facebook & Google to expand the upper end of the age range a bit, and then people will rub shoulders with people possessing different and possibly broader life experience.
That said, I do find lots of 20-30-something techies to be quite smart and experienced so am not trying to knock them here. Quite often it comes down to the individual's qualities and not merely their numerical age.
It's not a perfect 1 -> 1 to between kids and age obviously, but working with older engineers (and managers/TPMs) has been invaluable for the growth early in my career and I wish we had more of them.
Just my 2 cents.
Best of luck.
It's a Swedish site that's been around for quite a few years.
Translated it means exactly "hire an oldster", or rather "hire a pensioner".
Should there be sites that zone in on a particular discriminating aspect of a person? Hmm, like www.hireanoldveteran.com for old veterans that are having trouble looking for jobs.
And the idea that an "oldster" is a thing should not be legitimised by people in the tech industry. Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.
I would think in web development it could be as low as say, 35 but in sales, 50 may only be approaching it.
they wanna hire the youths. it sucks but it's reality.
also, you get more bang for you buck by hiring young workers(no family, kids, house, obligations, etc.)
2. A principal dev
4. Doing your own thing
5. Raising kids
If you say "I just like to code," fuck off. I'm growing a business, not "Just coding."
If you say "I have super powers," I say you're probably delusional. I'll get someone who has 15 years' experience who isn't delusional.
If you're still writing ifttt code at 50, yeah, I can find someone with literally 15 year's experience to do the same thing who is more than qualified for the job, but who won't either die or fail to grow with the role. I'm sorry if that's a shitty thing to say, but let's embrace reality.
If I can't find anyone else, I'll take a chance on you, but I want to hire people who will grow with the role, not people biding their time doing service-level code work.
If you think that's cruel, try getting a job in law.
Edit: p.s. If you're 50 and just starting out in programming, none of this applies. I'm interested. It's not age that concerns me, it's failure to grow.
The business itself may not be a great business due to the amount of cost it takes to run it -- but it's necessary for the running of other ventures.
Sort of like highways and non-toll bridges.
I think Atlassian is the company that makes the most out of the git marketplace, even if they have fewer customers. They are simply more efficient, and are ready to take over with Bitbucket if GitHub fails.
Also, many companies pay for Jira+Confluence even if they use GitHub.
(1) They went on a hiring spree in 2015-16, dramatically increasing their costs before their revenue was able to keep up. Something to keep an eye on in 2017.
(2) Half the team is remote! Kudos to them for making this work.
That said, they should be doing better margin-wise since they would have relatively lower customer acquisition costs compared to the market since they have so much developer recognition.
Can someone explain the rationale behind pumping all this money into firms that clearly don't need such vast amounts of it, which only spurs exorbitant and unnecessary spending? Is it some sort of non-obvious game of unicorn musical chairs hoping for a hyper inflated exit before the music stops?
Github should be a pillar platform in our community for the next decade, and the only way for them to become that is via profitability.
I travelled for an hour and he sat there staring at his phone between looking at me like something he had trodden in.
At least pointing tens of companies at Gitlab has made me feel better.
I don't care how advanced GitHub is; that is an INSANE number of employees for this kind of business!
If you calculate back from there, let's say $12M in ARR in Sep'13, $6M in Sep'12 and $4-5M in May'12 - that's insane (them raising $100M). Not sure if Bloomberg's data is correct but if we look at the other data points (probably same source data), $90M in ARR in Sep'16, it seems to be accurate.
Sep'12: $6M (assumed) -- raised $100M a couple of months earlierSep'13: $12M (assumed)Sep'14: $25M (according to Bloomberg)Sep'15: $50M (assumed)Sep'16: $90M (according to Bloomberg)
The Sillicon Valley episodes write themselves it seems haha. This is hilarious.
It just goes to show that having a profile on a website does not define who you are as a developer. Websites go under, and better ones will rise up. I hope GitHub does stay around... I do not care for their "politics" but I like their service.
How much would you be willing to pay to store your open-source code at github?
I had a recent conversation with a prospect and they took issue with the price of our software. Our app is in a specialized industry (ie. a smaller market). We charge a per use fee of $35. This fee enables our customer to immediately earn nearly $200 (a 5x return with no risk to them). Despite the significant benefit and profitability of using the app the prospect took issue with our price and referred to the cost of other apps.
It was that conversation that made me realize how we've become accustomed to the quality and price of software that's been heavily subsidized by massive VC investments.
I think this anxiety is why there's a lot of work being done in the decentralized space right now. The UX-side of "web 3.0" is sorely lacking but I think it's only a matter of time before people begin to crack it.
I'd love to see some research into what it would take (in terms of network size) to provide robust, decentralized replacements for service-as-infrastructure products like Github.
By the other hand, Atom is clearly a long term loser and they should let it go. Their contribution to the text editing world was terrific but now they should focus where they are the best.
The world would crumble/ it's probably some sort of weird national security scenario.
I put my private stuff on my own Gogs instance or on Bitbucket, tho I like Gogs UI much better, it's closer to github. The community fork of it, Gitea, is also making progress to enable pull request federation.
Would be awesome if I could work together with people using Gitlab, Github or Gitea without them having to sign upto my site. They just fork to their own site, make their patches and submit the pull request to my upstream.
GitHub has little value to me, the social network they built can move elsewhere like it is for many programmers and coders.
If a company as vitally important to an industry as Github is to software can't do this... it's time to really worry.
Now, the thing is very competitive, and many companies offer "exponential growth". If your growth slows down, if the perspective is not good, divestment starts and that is a downwards spiral.
To stay competitive and to prevent an investor run, companies are forced to take massive risks. And risks materialize into huge disasters... like this one apparently.
These sort of statements are a little annoying. I understand that Bloomberg has to write for a less technical audience, but the writer must know this isn't an accurate comparison.
>You Dont Need Venture Capital
>A lot has been written recently about how the venture capital world is changing. I dont pretend to be an expert on the subject, but Ive learned enough to say that a web startup like ours doesnt need any outside money to succeed. I know this because we havent taken a single dime from investors. We bootstrapped the company on a few thousand dollars and became profitable the day we opened to the public and started charging for subscriptions.
I guess VCing up and losing money is a choice. They probably figure the odd $100m cash loss will end up as $1bn+ on the market cap. He looks quite cheerful in his rich list write up http://www.forbes.com/profile/tom-preston-werner/
As soon as a company starts parroting political messages like "white middle managers have no empathy" instead of, you know, building good tools, I know it's time to find another solution. I was a paying customer, and when github got into the political game, I dropped them like a bad habit.
I'm not screwing around here, I'm trying to build a business and your political aspirations do _nothing_ for me as a customer, so why don't you take them and shove em. Happy customer at bitbucket ever since.
> John McCarthy wrote 6 easy things in machine code, then combined them to make a programming language.
John McCarthy didn't implement Lisp in machine code. Steve Russell did. Implementing Lisp properly in machine code is not easy; you have to write a garbage collector. To do that in the early 60s, you had to first invent garbage collection. Lisp was and is brilliant, but not as easily bootstrappable as this makes it out to be.
> It's not obvious that these six things are computationally complete (AKA Turing Complete).
`lambda` and function application alone are Turing-complete, as McCarthy would have known. The credit here belongs with Turing and Church, not McCarthy. `atom`, `cons`, `car` and all the rest are just icing on the cake of the lambda calculus when it comes to computability.
> All other meaning can be defined in terms of them.
Yes, and you can build everything on top of the SK combinator calculus if you like, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Lisp is surprisingly practical given how few core constructs it has, but real Lisp implementations have always added more primitives (eg. numbers and addition) for reasons of practicality.
> The language was defined in terms of itself as an interpreter. This is a proof by construction that the language is computationally complete.
No, it isn't. To prove Turing-completeness you need to show that you are as powerful as Turing machines. To do this it suffices to show that you can interpret a language already known to be Turing-complete. Showing you can interpret yourself does not suffice. It's easy to define a language which can do nothing useful except interpret itself, for example. (See also wyager's comment.)
> Well, Lisp is defined as an interpreter in terms of itself from the get-go, just like a Universal Turing Machine.
No. Defining a language only in itself is nonsense, for exactly the reason given above: it means nothing yet! It's like writing in a dictionary:
qyzzyghlm, v. intr. To qyzzyghlm.
It is annoying that so many languages (C, Java, C#, etc) have both a conditional statement (if-else) and conditional expression (ternary ?:). Really the if-else should be an expression (I think the ternary operator is hideous).
The definition of Turing completeness in the article is not correct. A language being able to execute programs written in itself is not a sufficient condition of Turing completenes. Trivial example: define a language with one pre-defined term, x, which is a routine that takes as input a string, checks if it's "x", and executes it if it is. The empty language is a counter-example as well, but that's cheating.
I'm also not sure if the use of the phrase "fixed point" is a misunderstanding of the definition of a fixed point or just an unfortunate use of a term that already has great significance in LISP.
> John McCarthy wrote 6 easy things in machine code
It was actually Steve Russel, McCarthy's grad student, who had the idea of writing McCarthy's eval function in machine code.
Still very much a work in progress. Feedback appreciated.
RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE (Part I)
From the page:
"This paper appeared in Communications of the ACM in April 1960. It is the original paper on Lisp."
I had mentioned it in this blog post in which I gave a few examples of doing simple computations recursively in Python (for beginners).
Recursive computation of simple functions:
And if anyone cares, here is nice Shirt with McCarthy on it ;)https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/666689-john-mccarthy-lisp-...
I think it should be mandatory for CS students to implement their own little Lisp using the building blocks McCarthy described! Instead they are learning Java and ist crappy OO...
I do know, though, that LISP allows the creation (or at least I have heard) for DSLs - so I am curious what people here think about this.
I'm also curious if anyone has an opinion on JetBrains MSL:
...and whether that would be a better thing to learn before or after learning LISP, as well as how it compares to LISP?
It's yet another "thing" that has caught my eye over the years, but again - no use case, and so it remains on the back burner for now...
When people watch someone soldering, their attention is drawn to the iron, and to the shiny melted flowing metal. However, it's really cleaning the tip of the iron and having an iron that can provide enough power at the right temperature that matters.
EDIT: Found an answer: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3323549/is-a-statically-t...
Alan, if you're there, would you care to comment?
Can someone mantion a few features or scenarios that make it the best choice for starting a new project?
When I was in my 20's, I programmed at least 100,000 lines of Z80 assembler for the first micro computers. One project was at least 40,000 lines and so I know how difficult it is to program larger assembler programs. The biggest problem is that it is hard to see the structure of the loops and conditionals that we normally indent in higher level languages. (You can indent a Lisp program in any way but the language doesn't require any at all.) It is also difficult to recognize expressions. Both of these problems are also there in Lisp (unlike most other high level languages).
One last point about the linked list structure at the heart of Lisp. Linked lists are poorly executed in modern computers that rely heavily on locality of data, to optimize the L1 cache. Lisp was very easy on the compiler/interpreter writer but wasn't very good at optimizing the readability of the code for the programmer. (I don't want a religious war but I will point out that most programmers have never programmed in Lisp even though it was one of the first computer languages created.) Before I get a lot of dissing comments, I think with practice, some programmers developed an eye for the lack of structural clues and made some reasonable size code. You could say the same about some programmers making quite good large scale programs in assembler but that doesn't mean that writing in assembler or Lisp should be encouraged.
If you're excited and interested in Galileo it's really worth reading up on how GPS works and was built. The first satellite was launched almost forty years ago and it was operational in the 1980s. It's truly one of the coolest and most amazing things made by humans.
This seems like quite a big issue; If any of the EU states go to war, then planes and other civilian things relying on Galileo would stop working? Would they fall back to GPS?
> Real-world data from the FAA show their high-quality GPS SPS receivers attaining better than 2.168 meter horizontal accuracy, 95% of the time.
Also wonder how many devices this network can support. I'm sure there is sufficient capacity but I'm just curious how the capacity is calculated!
_Just_ as the list of templates started getting interesting with some Youtube slider-thing integration, it came to an end. So yeah, this seems to be aimed at folks who need to build ads quickly and don't want to have to be HTML5 pros.
With that said, there's a "my templates" feature so maybe you can use it to maintain your Star Trek fan website, or business portfolio website, too. I'd just hesitate to recommend that in general, as my experience with GUI HTML5 builders has been that they aren't the best IDEs or text editors and I really quickly start to need one in order to be efficient.
At this point they probably have a small team working on it for sake of their ad division but people here shouldn't into this too much.
My next biggest concern is that these tools don't really teach people much about how the web works and also that marketer-types tend to over-use these tools with their new-found 'skills' and build over-bloated sites.
HTML is easy.
The templates are all for banners and the tools for making say a "div" are not there.
Not sure if anyone's heard of Readymag, but I'm really impressed with their editor - and it has excellent typography tools and UI.
Anyway, what I've noticed is that now many people are abandoning their own websites & blogs in favor of a centralized service such as Medium, Instagram, etc.. I remember a few years ago there were alot of fashion bloggers and now they're all on Instagram, updating daily. People have lost interest in designing, building, maintaining their own sites because it's too much work for the average person. Not to mention traffic going to the individual sites are neglible compared to social media. When posting a photo on your own site gets 10 visitors, but that same photo garners hundreds of likes on somebody else's platform, then you're going to be spending time on that platform.
Also, what if google decides to shut this down suddenly someday? Will it be easy to switch a project to a different software then?
Its wonderful that we see these interesting reports every week, but as a non-specialist you never how it will impact human longevity, and when.
What I'd like to read is a well considered "state-of-longevity-science" report - by someone not Aubrey DeGray (give the man a medal) but equally cognizant, perhaps more conservative - that actually explains and weighs the torrent of advancements as they happen and gives them some context.
What is the likely impact of crispr, of rosveratrol, of telomere-foo, of gene-therapy, of blood cleansing, of stem-cells on logevity in 10 / 20 years ? Where and why should we rationally allocate research money ? What is likely to benefit Alzheimers patients in the 5 year term ?
Its the kind of state of play you need updated on a monthly basis, due to the pace of progress.
Does such a report already exist ?
Fairness Only rich people will get it. (no tech has ever done this.) Better to give money to the poor than science. (family,city,state,nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.) Bad for society Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.) Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistant) Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.) Stop having kids Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136) Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age) Bad for individual You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related) You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?) You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.) Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)
Man up, save your family, save yourself.
Disclaimer: I'm half way done with a book on this topic. Mail me if you're interested. Scivive on the most popular email service.
P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horribles comes true, even earlier.
"In living mice they activated the four genes (known as Yamanaka factors, for researcher Shinya Yamanaka, the Nobelist who discovered their combined potential in 2006). This approach rejuvenated damaged muscles and the pancreas in a middle-aged mouse, ... "
"... These (other) approaches can reverse some aspects of aging, such as muscle degenerationbut aging returns when the treatment stops, he adds. With an approach like the one Belmonte lays out in the new study, theoretically you could have one treatment and go back 10 or 20 years, he says. If aging starts to catch up to you again, you simply get another treatment."
1) Doing anything to the aging of cells in culture has next to nothing to do with what goes on inside aging tissues, or where it does that is heavily dependent on the details. The article doesn't tell you enough to decide, so you should look at the paper.
2) Doing anything that attenuates the effects of an accelerated aging phenotype, actually usually a DNA repair disorder, almost always has nothing to do with aging as it happens in normal individuals. You can hit mice with hammers, and then evaluate the effects of a hammer-blocking cage, but that doesn't tell you anything about aging - and for exactly the same reasons. This is generally true except when it is isn't, and that depends on the fine details. Again, go look at the paper.
3) The interesting experiment is the one in which pluripotency-inducing factors are upregulated in a normal mouse, but temporarily. This is the thing that people have looked at in the past and said, well, turning on widespread transformation of somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells sounds like a really bad idea. Cancer seems the likely outcome, and that has in fact been demonstrated in a couple of studies in mice, but there is also the point that your central nervous system rather relies upon maintaining the fine structure it has established in many cases, such as data stored in the brain. Running in and randomly reprogramming any CNS cells that take up the vector or the pluripotency signals seems like a bad idea on the face of it.
So on the whole it is fascinating that a good outcome was produced in the normal mice, analogous to the sort of thing that has been produced via stem cell transplants and telomerase gene therapies. But I'd still want to see what happens to the mice over the long term after that, and would expect cancer.
Still a ways off for human use but definitely interesting research.
Babies make everyone around them happy.
Old people are racist and suffocatingly repetitive. They never have any new ideas and spend all their time in the past. They're the brakes on progress.
Life is all about novelty. Let's have new people in this world.
A cybernetically augmented human might gain an intelligence completely alien (and hostile) to us non-augments. And an immortal-except-for-catestrophic-accidents could amass an unseemly amount of wealth and control over non-immortals over their long lives - moreso than the elites of today could dream of.
My concern about those that metahumans will hold such disproportionate power and they'll quickly get bored. Idle hands are the devil's playthings after all, and they could really make life difficult for the rest of us.
I want to see what a many-hundreds of years healthy life will be like and live many lives, but I do not want to have implants or devices that warp my mind/memory. I want to stay human, just minus the frailties. I'm hoping that these evolving new technologies sort neatly into two buckets: those that enhance but still retain the essential (limited) human experience, and those that seek to obliterate and replace the human experience (so that I know which ones to avoid.)
Everyone always says "Don't stake your livelihood on platforms you don't control" (e.g. Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, etc.), but what happens when one of those platforms suddenly forces its way into your business? How can a restaurant owner turn them down when all the short-sighted owners nearby are happily signing up?
I'm imagining a day in the future where a restaurant goes broke because Amazon had become a significant portion of their orders, but they suddenly got kicked off the service after X number of complaints (happens to FBA sellers all the time). By the time other restaurant owners realize how easily Amazon can destroy their livelihood, they might be too dependent to voluntarily leave. And then all the smug commenters from the last thread will be grateful for another opportunity to say "Well the restaurants should've known better than to sign up in the first place!"
Ordering was interesting, they didn't have the pizza I wanted listed under the pre-made options, so I had to make my own, but there was no option to do half and half and adding additional topping had a confusing interface. The menus do not seem to be optimized for each restaurant the way Doordash is, and you must click on an item to see the price.
Also the food wasn't kept in a thermal bag, like pizza delivery does, so it wasn't piping hot when I received it and the delivery members don't have distinct shirts. I probably won't use it ever again since I prefer Doordash, and one of my friends brother in laws is a cofounder/CTO so I feel a false tie to it.
Turns out now we use it so much and I've found that the value is that I can order by phone when I leave work and by the time I get home the food will be arriving at my door.
The real value to me is that I can order dinner! They've had a few hiccups in the early days but now its pretty solid!
Skip is very popular here in Winnipeg since this is where they're headquartered, but always seemed like the underdog in the overall market. Wondering what will become of Skip, and how Just Eat and the others will keep duking it out from here now that Amazon is in the ring too.
Amazon could probably beat out the low-end guys simply by using vehicles and containers capable of keeping the hot stuff hot and the cold stuff cold.
Either way, Seamless/Grubhub have turned to utter garbage since their merger. I'm happily using Delivery, but much like Uber/Lyft, these are commodity businesses that I can switch between at zero cost to myself. So I'll give Amazon a try too.
If it doesn't cost any more than what I'd pay in person schlepping to the restaurant, the psychological barrier to ordering on a whim is virtually eliminated. It also has that Uber-esque impersonality to it: the delivery guy doesn't wait around after dropping of your food in your typical managed NY apartment building (literally racing down when I get the call, I've never been able to spot them), since they're tipped up front. In fact, the last service I can remember that was such a no-brainer improvement when introduced, was Uber X.
That's not sustainable you might say. But members do pay $99/year for Prime, which isn't a whole lot since it does so much, but is increasingly a larger part where Amazon makes their margin from.
Uber eats is the best of these I've found, but it's a pain meeting at the curb.
Amazon restaurants has by far the worst drivers though, I think compounded by tipping before they deliver, and no ratings system
I imagine this effect would be even more pronounced with "the everything store" encompassing an ever-larger portion of total commerce.
The thrill of having a pizza arrive by drone could justify a hefty premium for a kids birthday party.
So far, I've only ever used Amazon when I have a coupon. It would be cool if I could accumulate Amazon restaurant credit as an option when I choose No Rush Shipping or have some form of loyalty/rewards system. Else, I'm just going to choose whatever is cheapest, even if slightly less convenient. And that's just me. Other users' loyalty could be even more elusive I'm sure.
So, what happens when this happens to these restaurants? Like, say I 'open' up a restaurant inside of my apartment. Maybe I list the address as some other place, or I just risk the local health inspector showing up unannounced. But I only sell via Amazon, and I get some friends and family to write reviews of my kitchen, or maybe I just pay some 'bots to do it too. Amazon has problems already with that fly-by-night operation, how are they going to combat it?
For reference, this was an issue with GrubHub last year:
* delivery time = 30 minutes
* minimum wage + minor benefits = $10/hr
* cost of vehicle, gas and other logistics = $5/hr
...then they must charge $10 per delivery. If you squeeze and wiggle may be you can bring this down to $7 or so likely not considering downtimes in between peak hours. I thought this was the reason why most door-to-door delivery services eventually failed or switched to catering. What is the new business innovation here?
That said, the UI isn't quite as user friendly. It feels bolted on top of Prime Now, so you don't really have a typical menu, a regular shopping cart is used and shared with Prime Now which just feels a bit off. I think it would feel much nicer if they built a website specific to food ordering instead of trying to shoehorn it into Prime Now.
If I am with a group of people we can go to restaurant anyway. On the other hand, eating out alone is awkward, so ordering online becomes more attractive.
It's kind of like competing with Amazon or Google for cloud infrastructure. Very few companies need all of those machines or that tech, they have no use for it other than renting to people. Amazon and Google on the other hand already needed that tech. They are essentially renting their own excess.
Are they delivering 24/7 or at least in the evening? A killer feature for normal amazon would be delivery at a time where people are home from work instead of during working hours...not sure why this isn't a thing yet.
I can't say I'm having an easy time keeping track of which service to use for what.
Can someone explain the point of this post?
The benefit is that the delivery fee is included into your Amazon Prime plan.
Now, in my opinion, Sprig is a much more affordable everyday meal option when you get the membership. There's also Doordash, GrubHub, EAT24, UberEATS, Postmates... etc. You'll find some restaurants are not available in some apps.
However, when I read how they threat their employees: it sounds horrible.
Let's hope they never get to the tipping point that they can threat Restaurants, like their employees.
That said: I like it that they try out new things and don't care about failing.
Should big companies just start linking directly to things they want us to buy on HN, with no context? Is that encouraged here?
She was very candid about the position of the FCC and the fact that she was finally able to speak her mind because this was going to be one of her last public appearances as a government official. One thing that stuck me was what she said about Tom: "He actually believes that the consumer, the american people, are his clients. He's said that from the first day and he'll say that the day he leaves. Trust me, he doesn't like any of the companies [laughter]". The loss of the current administration of the FCC (including but not limited to Tom) will be a great loss for the American people in my opinion.
The conference was interesting and somewhat sad, because it was planned before the election and probably with the assumption that the new administration would not be totally hostile. Instead of the original direction of "here's what we've done and how we plan to carry these goals forward" it ended up being more of a retrospective on progress that had been made at the federal level that was about to be erased.
From the people I saw, there did not seem to be anyone there representing the new administration.
He was extremely reasonable and very receptive to the needs of the tech community and small businesses. I came away from the meeting pleasantly surprised and have been happy with his actions during his tenure. Sad to see him go.
Meanwhile those opposed have been able to come up with analogies that while false and misleading, are easily understood.
What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical?
Hang in there, guys..
"Wired.com is not included in your Comcast Internet Basic package. Click here to upgrade to Comcast Internet Extreme for $9.99 more a month, for access to Wired.com and twenty other premium web sites!"
Until I had the (mis)pleasure of working with a truly toxic co-worker did my mindset completely change on the issue of bullying, intimidation, and hostility in the workplace. He was a senior guy, decent at his job. But how he was able to change the dynamic of multiple teams was very offsetting. Communication declined, as people didn't want to go near the team that had the guy that was insulting them everytime on a whim. Workplace politics were on the rise. The common denominator was this guy was involved with every issue. Management stayed quiet and attempted to push it under the rug for a bit, but eventually they had to take notice. It was so relieving to walk in one day to him cleaning out his desk. I remember locking eyes with him one last time and giving him a final unspoken send off with a stern glare. He turned the corner and I never saw him again. My co-workers and myself went out for lunch as a celebration. The amount of relief was incredible. It was like starting fresh again.
Back to the article, I still can't say I fully understand what this woman went through. But just having a taste of how off-putting 1 toxic employee can be really opened my eyes. I can't fathom having multiple employees or even a manager with that type of behavior. I won't comment on gender or racial issues.
Being stressed from work is okay. Some jobs have more stress than others, and at higher frequencies. But being stressed from the people at work is needless stress that compounds on top of the regular work stress that we all accept to some degree when entering a job or role.
Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them.
At the same time, words like "sexism" and phrases like "as a minority..." are a big turn-off to some readers, myself included. This isn't because I don't believe in racism/sexism/xenophobia, it's because we're never going to be able to agree on definitions for those terms and so they end up being almost useless as descriptors.
I would put this in almost literary terms: I don't want events to be described, I want them to be recounted. This is also how I feel about movies and literature: I want novels/screenplays that "show rather than tell." I don't want to be told how to think about an event, I just want it to be presented to me.
I also believe that categorizing your personal experiences in terms of broader social phenomena is a mistake. In my opinion, this kind of thinking leads to generalization and tends to obscure the actual events that took place and the actors involved.
All that aside, absolute sympathy to the author here. It's incomprehensible to me that people can behave like this, but sadly they do.
For instance friendly teasing, sometimes even started by the person themselves (e.g. "Oh, you know us [blanks], good at [blank]") can be taken way too far. People wrongly get the sense that something is OK because the person doesn't complain or laughs along and it can escalate to the point of full on harassment and your brain still thinks "[person] is my buddy, it's OK". I think it's partially human nature and wanting to fit in. The person being teased doesn't want to come off adversarial, the person teasing thinks it's "their joke".
I realized long ago simply don't tease people at work. They are not around you by choice. Don't assume people at work are friends in the way your drinking buddies are friends. You honestly have no idea how they really feel about it until it's too late, save it for your friends who are around you by choice.
> Indian women being subservient
I agree that these comments don't belong in the workplace. I have seen similar ones lead to people fired on the day and escorted to the door. Thankfully it's relatively rare but some places do take it very seriously.
Apple was wrong. In Australia the law is clear and they've breached it. Take them to court and get your payout. It's annoying that the victim has to do that but it's possible.
For other parts of the article I put myself in her shoes and didn't find management's treatment of her particularly different from how I (a male) would be treated after complaining about the actions of anyone else (male or female) in the workplace - which is why I don't. HR is ineffectual and the company is against you regardless of whomever is at fault. It just wants one or the other party gone so things can go back to normal, so if it's you versus five other people it's easier to fire and rehire one than five.
> employers also have an obligation to handle the situation with empathy and integrity
And this line stood out at me as being divorced from reality especially at a big company.
I get it that we mostly want companies to be like this but I think it's also obvious that they're not. They are primarily profit motivated and we're lucky if they don't pollute the environment or commit atrocities in the process.
You can look for smaller companies that do it, you can put it in your own company, but if you really felt Apple would be like that then it's being a little naive.
I worked at one mid-size company that was acquired by a competitor who wanted to drive in the boot heel by firing the previous management in as embarrassing a way as possible. My boss was on the chopping block and had false charges levelled at him over email and summarily fired. He took it through the Australian workplace relations system to try to get some closure, until the government advised there's no law to prevent a company making anything up and firing you for it. He could have pursued defamation but that's also extremely difficult, long, and expensive, and he didn't have the money.
It was at that point I grew up in my career and decided you really can't trust any company to look out for you. That's not how it works.
The sole role of Human Resources is to protect the company from liability, either through lawsuits or labor law compliance. Occasionally managers will abdicate their duty and delegate parts of hiring authority to a section of the company with no understanding of what they do and no accountability for getting it wrong, but that's not as common as you think. Most hiring just gets rubber stamped by HR, not driven by them.
That's all. They're a cost center with no authority beyond saying "this kid is gonna cost us a lot of money if we don't get rid of them"-- either by being a harasser or by being the litigious type (to HR, they're actually the same thing).
If you're expecting them to intercede on your behalf with your manager without something being obviously out of control, ie lawsuit-worthy, you're gonna have a hard time.
- Make sure to have some real friends at work. No, someone you work with everyday is not necessarily a real friend, you have to make real connections with them, so they are willing to defend and support you when things get tough.
- Be observant and empathetic, so you can notice problems when they first arise, and resolve them before they escalate. This is hard for engineers, as we focus on computers most of the time and don't get to practice the skills of empathy a lot.
- Be strong. Sometimes escalations do happen, and now you have one or more people dislike you and try to make your life hard. You need to be emotionally strong to withstand their attacks, and keep a clear mind to figure out a way to defeat them or at least reach a ceasefire.
Sadly, politics happen all the time when inter-personal interactions happen, not necessarily the result of one shady colleague with agendas. This could happen to anyone, although sadly more often to minorities, because it's harder to hide the fact that we are outsiders.
My concern is people seem to think it only happens in previously (and still) male dominated fields. It happens everywhere.
I think the woman that voice their concerns and challenges are more abundant in the tech industry probably because the industry is more progressive and generally more educated.
Where I have seen ultra sexism has been in sales and finance. Extremely disturbing in your face sexism. Anecdotally the sexism in tech is sort of passive aggressive but the sexism in other industries is disturbingly direct (one could argue the subtle one being worse). My point is it is everywhere.
I hope the tech industry fixes it and becomes the leader.
They contracted a specialize company to investigate, collect the facts and present their conclusions. The conclusions would be sent at the same time to the alleged victim, the HR and the manager.
In this case the conclusion was that there was no harassment according to legal definition. These argumented conclusions would have been presented to a trial as reference if any party would want to contest them.
The company performing the audit is specialized in it. So they can recognize a real harassment from an abusive claim. They also have no interest in the company. It is in the interest of the company to call them to get a leverage to apply whatever measure they would find appropriate. If the victim is an employee, and he/she would consider the reaction inappropriate and abusive, he/she could complain to a tribunal.
Today, a company that is not reacting like that (diligent an investigation by an independent party) to a harassment complain would be considered a priori suspect or would be consider to have failed complying to its duty because it is their responsibility to do so.
- does not put blame for handling it on any single person or function.
- illustrates systemic dysfunction. Normal incentives work against handling the abuse claim - HR tries to protect company, managers caught in conflict of interest
- points out the result of management not acting clearly. The person bullied feels taking on more responsibility of navigating the mess. As the person has no effective control this add more distress.
- shows the manager dilemma when supporting minority (in whatever sense) in a naive way. The person standing out stands out even more. Dammed if you do and probably dammed if you don't.
- even in an environment where the bullied person is receiving widespread support from others at times (scene at the table where other were speaking up) long running and extreme stress does damage.
- few understand that the problems often only show up months later as it is typical for PTSD
It is very difficult to say what can be done to prevent this. It is obvious that management is making the wrong decisions but why? I believe the author is on something with the conflict of interest. I would add avoidance of conflict - they are empowered to handle it but shy away. Then there is inability to handle bullies by a lot of them - trying to be even handed since this is the normal mode when one side is obviously overstepping (similar to press-Trump relationship).
What could be done by companies? Specialized people/services dealing with that sort of behavior may be one. Making sure management is well grounded in values and knows how to decide in these conflict of interest cases may help a little too.
What can one do to be prepared? Not being weak is probably the best preparation. Ability to fight and win or to pack and run is key to be able to force a resolution.
What to do when caught in it? These days I think getting external help early. Covering two sides: The psychological one (therapist with first hand experience of psychopathic people and stress management, possibly PTSD) and legal advice.
Full disclosure: Could tell a similar sad tale.
It's also quite hard to be public about this (I know someone who recently left Apple for similar reasons but won't discuss it publicly).
I wonder if things would have played out differently if she had immediately addressed her supervisor's unnecessary defense. While this seems like the starting point for the harassment, my guess is that it was ingrained in the team all along and would have come out at one point or another. Not that that makes it any better.
Truly horrible experience for anyone to go through and I hope she finds a better place to work in and can perhaps put this bitter experience to help others.
In California, all managers are required by law to take three hours of sexual harassment training every other year. One thing that stood out to me is that there is no need to make a formal harassment claim: when anyone mentions they have experienced harassment to a manager, even in a private conversation, the manager is required to report it and investigate. If the employee says they want to keep the conversation in confidence, the manager is supposed to say they can't do that. If a manager doesn't follow up, they can be personally liable.
Several companies I've been at also have a mandatory "managers and the law" training class. I didn't talk to anyone for several days after taking it. :)
IANAL, but my understanding is that one job of HR is to protect the company. One reason they investigate is to produce evidence that could be used in the event of a lawsuit to prove they took the allegation seriously. Trying to argue with the employee that it didn't happen would put them in a really bad position if they were sued, because it could be used to demonstrate a hostile work environment.
I've seen complaints happen a few times in my career (not involving me directly), and, in those cases, HR took it gravely seriously. They talked to everyone involved and documented the crap out of it. Most of the people I've met in HR seem to genuinely care. I disagree with advice that HR should not be trusted, but my advice for someone who is in a situation where they are uncomfortable is to document everything. Keep emails of all interactions with your manager and HR and send follow up email to summarize conversations you had in person.
What I do next is that I make sure I communicate clearly those two points to whoever I think should get me what I want. For example, in that case, I would go see my manager and say: "Jack told me this and that and I consider this is inappropriate. I never want to be told that again in this company. If it happens again, I quit. Have you understood? (wait for his answer) What will you do to make sure it doesn't happen anymore?" (it is important to ask if he has understood, it forces him to go right in the middle of the circle you just draw on the floor, that put him in your territory, right under your guns).
Sometimes, you will have to apply 2). For example in this case, your manager would have to tell you something substantial about what he gonna do to stop that. If what he tells you is not substantial, tell him you are not satisfied and ask him again the same question: "what can you do to make sure it will stop?". Don't quit on that. Keep asking. Only apply 2) if he don't answer anymore. It's typically a situation where "you don't leave the shop until...". If your manager tells you to go see the HR department, tell him clearly again 2): "if I don't get what I want I will leave. Do you still want me to go see the HR department? Are you sure?". Apply pressure, at every step.
Do not have a discussion. Don't discuss the problem with your manager. Don't talk. Ask your question and wait for an answer. If he want to discuss, make him understand you won't.
It's crucial to apply 2) right away when you don't get what you want. I've found it's rarely the occasion to make a deal and make a compromise not so much because the deal is bad but because by doing so, they will start kidding you again.
I'm super happy so far with the result of this method. I get fantastic results from my family, employers, friends, from everybody. At first, you will feel like a freak. Then you will notice the others won't think so much that you are a freak but will think you are a strong person they should not kid with. You end up being respected.
This comment rang some bells for me. Have a friend from the Netherlands who was in undergrad with me, and one day in confidence he told me one of the things he didn't understand most in America is how someone can harbor, and actively maintain, such a passionate hatred for someone they aren't intimately involved with.
While this hatred is most definitely present in other first world nations, I can't avoid the fact that he is correct and far more pervasive in America. It doesn't make much sense to me.
In American English, pauses are almost always mechanically/syntactically determined and carry no meaning, but increasing the volume for a given word shows emphasis. This EASILY leads to extreme and sudden misunderstandings in both directions, as each side sees very obvious sarcasm and emphasis where none was intended. They're both sure they're right and that they are speaking the same language, but outside of print, these are two separate languages.
Since it's more recent, the Northern Indian English vocabulary has a cleaner logic, so personally if I had to chose just one, I'd go with that, but that's neither here nor there.
Long years ago, I attended a lecture by, I believe, the first scholar to experimentally demonstrate this and publish it; and the recorded examples of ordinary real-life interactions (not staged) taking place in British businesses that he used to illustrate the lecture were extremely striking; in fact very explosive.
In case this seems like something anyone would notice - in fact it's beneath notice. Similarly, the semantic use of tones in Chinese was denied by scholars there for something like hundreds of years, before finally being acknowledged. Language is handled unconsciously for the most part.
Will I judge that Apple has a culture of Harassment and Tech Industry has a culture of harassment from this medium article? Definitely No. I would be foolish to judge so from hearing the arguments from a single party.
Companies use the system to purposefully depress wages. It needs to end.
I like that she points out the conflicts of interest, wherein the legal structures in which companies are embedded so clearly work against a good solution to the problem.
However I think when she says:
"corrective actions for any violations have to be significant enough to be a deterrent to such behaviors in the future. There also needs to be some accountability for these actions"
She is taking on the same position as these legal structures - I.e. that retribution or punishment is an important part of the equation, and I think this is counter to the rest of her argument.
Men raised in a sexist society can't be individually held responsible for acting in the way they have seen people acting around them as though these are intentional crimes against women.
Massive career damage needs to be taken off the table as the first consequence for all sides of this.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a great deal of accountability - but it needs to be something closer to restorative justice - where those involved can understand each other rather than remain embattled.
Unless there is someone at the top that takes these matter seriously on a personal level and has communicated it to his subordinates, senior management in general only pays lip service to taking such matters seriously. These are complex matters and every one wants to get on with their work, rather than deal with the problem.
Tim Cook, I would expect, would have sent the message about taking such matters seriously. It seems like someone between him and the victim decided to add his "personal expertise" to this case and mishandled it completely.
"One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism."
I'm sure there's a way that a supervisor jumping to your defense could be sexist, but this isn't showing that, at all.
"At a lunch with several other coworkers, one of these men ordered me to summon the waiter and pay the bill, in the tone of a command to someone inferior and subservient."
Certainly odd behavior, but I'm not sure I would call it sexist. Arrogant for sure, but surely there's more context?
To be clear, I'm not saying she's wrong, just that this story isn't helping me understand what she went through, or that it was particularly sexist, versus just hostile.
For better or worse, HR is there to protect the company, not the employee. This is why many times they report in through legal. It's not fair, but it's the way companies work.
This isn't about sexism, racism, etc. This is about a ringleader selecting a victim to prey upon for the sole purpose of causing pain.
If she'd gone to HR with recordings and they brushed aside her concerns then she'd have a much stronger case.
Well as she said, a distressed mind doesn't think properly.
The only thing I miss from the article: did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager? Maybe I misread something but it seems like this did not happen, yet this should always be the first step.
My additional notes:
> Instead of helping me, HR embarked on a defensive and confrontational script.
> It is not reasonable to expect the victim to have the presence of mind to know how to tackle this problem.
> Until the investigation was completed, even my honesty was at stake.
> harassment is one of the most brutal experiences women encounter in the workplace [...] Companies need to do far more than what they are doing right now to prevent women from eventually quitting. [...] The company needs to support and empower women to take a stand in these situations. [...] This includes considering women in these situations as people, rather than as pawns in the greater agenda of protecting the companys legal liabilities.
Harassment get target _anyone_, it comes in all flavours. Please don't make harassment part of the gender wars. You can get harassed for having a foreign accent in the UK. ( In a country where English pronunciation differs from village to village. )
That statement totally reminds me of accounts I've read of conservatives and how they feel about minorities get special treatment.
I just find it really interesting that groups in power react this way while they are still in power. It's a very, very foreign thing to me and I don't understand the source of it, but there is very clearly a common thread of this running through our world right now.
The tech industry absolutely doesn't need unions /s
Just being completely honest, this reinforces my general opinion to be very cautious around females, avoiding it where possible is probably a wise idea.
Go do some math proofs and report back
Found the most HN comment I'll see all day.
It's like asking for respect for getting addicted to pills by pharmaceutical industries because that's a part of American culture. Maybe some criticism would be in place despite the "it's our culture" thing?
But do not harass every Indian person you can find about it!
I've had many fine coworkers from India working in the US or from India in the past and I can't imagine harassing them about this.
Sounds like Her boss and Hr failed I wonder if things Like brexit and Trump have made closet racists fell they can be more open
its a bit of stretch to call Indians a minority in tech, if anything we are vastly over-represented by any standard.
> So was Sciview actually some sort of analytics app for Silk Road, with the sensors representing some other Silk Road metrics? Or was BB truly freelancing for SpaceX while administering Silk Road?
> AUTHOR: Excellent question, I dont know.
So he has no idea if he was just a subcontractor or if he was doing work for Silk Road. If I had to bet on this, I'd guess the friend subcontracted a project to him for easy cash (or because he was in over his head) and the Silk Road stuff was completely unrelated.
What would Silk Road do with such an application anyway?
All I can really say is maybe you should be extra skeptical when somebody talks about working for a "big name" company, like SpaceX, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. If you're never reading or writing emails from a company.com email address, going to company's actual public website, going for interviews or meetings at an actual company office, then maybe you should look really closely at who you're really working for.
Walk past the car and photograph the driver. They really love that.
The "live demo" in the linked github doesn't seem to be very "live", in that it seems to be totally static. The post talks about "drawing correlations" but all it does it make a graph. http://sciview.herokuapp.com/#/data-sets/0
Maybe if the project was actually functional and high quality, but it's just a half baked project that doesn't even work.
Furthermore, there's no proof that what he worked on was actually silk road. Even looking at the screenshots it says nothing about silkroad, looks actually like a spacex project.
Like others said, I think his main motivation is to post it for the record, so if one day he disappears, people know where to track him down.
"I don't know whether to smile or laugh" isn't a very powerful expression.
Also space x is not a green start up, why would they still lack the ability to visualize and analyze data?
The author obviously failed to ask himself this obvious questions.
I understand it's probably a painful story to tell, but a lot of little details are missing here, and they'd probably help both the author's friends and new readers like me understand what happened.
It focuses on how Satya Nadella has respected the leaders of Companies he's bought out and invited them to key meetings. Using their insight not only for product and company direction, but importantly creating culture as well. Very key to Microsoft and any tech company's success.
I recall hearing many stories about how Microsoft had like 3 managers per programmer, probably exaggeration, but the point remains, who would want to work there if you skilled/lucky enough to choose? Looks like they may be changing in some good ways.
The window manager is tolerable (not as good as Xmonad, but equivalent to Unity). Windows subsystem for linux is letting me get my work done with no problems. Anaconda lets me do scientific python work natively from within windows. Emacs seems to work just fine. Cortana is actually pretty cool.
Overall, I haven't felt the need to race back to Linux. I'm surprised to say this, but Windows might be an acceptable linux.
(A while back I wrote about my failed attempt to use OS X: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1787411 )
As an outsider, I also think Apple seems to have spread their best technical minds thin, by adding the platforms watchOS and tvOS. While I understand the rationale behind watchOS, without the ability for developers to create the watch faces, it's not that exciting a platform, it's too controlled. Anyhow, the result of this talent dispersion, is that they have failed to maintain the MacbookPro's status as the most exciting development platform, which it had been IMO throughout the 21st century.
I, my peers, and my co-workers just don't see it. With billions in reserve it's no surprise they are trying to buy popularity.
They were late to the internet party and then under the disastrous leadership of Ballamer (mindshare wise, not revenue) they completely lost the plot.
Now they are indeed enjoying a resurgence, less evil, more relevant and surprisingly accepting of Open source software. How the world turns....
FTA: After years of missteps, the software giant is among the few titans of the 1990s to figure out the new world of mobile technology and cloud computing.
Saying MSFT have figured out mobile is a little too much of a stretch. They have tried many things in the space, they have figured out more of what doesn't work than what does. Unfortunately the market doesn't reward learnings alone.
I personally like the:
Surface products, Typescript, C#/F#, .NET Core, Visual Studio Code, and the Hololens.
I enjoy Azure but I understand some people's frustration with it so I exclude it from the list above, I get that it's contentious so I'm leaving it off.
Microsoft has taken some great steps since Nadella took over. Doing more projects aimed at regular developers and taking baby steps towards open source, but that is not enough to be a leader.
In fact, I think in 2016, we are in a much worse place when it comes to tech leadership than we were in the late 90s and early 00s. The tech world has been poisoned by money and everything is focused on maximizing profit. Almost nothing is being created because it's innovative or really life changing. The new products that are coming out like Google Home or Microsoft Office 365 which claim to be innovative, really aren't. They are repackaging an existing product in a new context. That's called marketing. That's not tech leadership.
In the 90s we had the launch of Linux, the web and home internet access.
In the 2000s all we've really had is smart phones. Everything else has just been building on what was done in the 90s because the people in charge are all marketers and profit seekers.
Do something truly innovative with all your billions Microsoft, and then I will buy that you are a tech leader. No amount of press releases or fluff articles will convince me.
They've caught on?
The migration to a subscription model for everything is bad. Everyone ends up paying more over time and for it we're getting online software delivery that at some points doesn't even work properly or leaves you in the dust. What you end up buying is golden handcuffs.
There is so much fragmentation, it's unreal. As someone who deals with .Net a lot, there is no conclusive plan that lasts more than a few weeks. Tools are volatile, frameworks are fragmented, tooling is pushing more features instead of quality. The rate of churn is also so high, no one knows what the hell is going on. Add to that, reckless abandonment of the last few years is still a major policy. Even looking at Microsoft Office extensions, the bread and butter of many industries, no one has any idea what they hell they are playing at with VSTO and Office 365 at the moment. They plugged a half baked script API in it and consigned everyone to the side bar. No one talks about fight club, or VSTO either apparently.
There are still really bad quality issues. Not a single day goes by where anything isn't poking you in the eye to the point you want to throw your computer or handset out of the window. There is no way to report this or get it fixed conclusively. Even enterprise reps have no idea how to get products fixed at the moment. It has become worse than the days of Microsoft Connect which was a "write this down so we can close it and say fuck you". A lot of things simply just don't even work properly as well. Shit is shiny but it's still shit.
Customers are getting a pricing shafting across the board. Average Joe Consumer doesn't see this but enterprise pricing is paying for all of this. It's horrific some of the prices I've seen floating around recently.
On top of this there is also a new policy of telling the customer what they're getting and being permanently correct. Occasionally to appease the masses, one or two things a year in one of their uservoice type systems close to the business vision (which appears to be totalitarian cross platform domination) get chucked out half baked with a grand announcement. This is celebrated as a major success while a thousand new and old paper cuts, well actually proportionately speaking, eviscerations with a knife, go unnoticed.
I'm not saying they are worse than any of the other larger "tech leaders" but they are not worthy of the mindless praise that is slathered all over them by some members of the tech community and the media recently.
That could be the title of a horror movie...
Great comment from Mark stamp in the comments section.
Other than Apple, Oracle and IBM?
Express/Community versions, VS Code, typescript, open source, github, browser standards, Windows 10. So many good signs. I can't name the other company that have shown so many good signs in recent past.
Basically early in 2016 I gravitated towards MS mainly due to the tight integration with VS + Streamlined Azure Portal UI....but the overwhelming amount of new C# ASP.NET stuff I was now encouraged to use...was a tough sell.
tl;dr: Build 2016 convinced me to switch to Azure but now I'm back on AWS post Reinvent 2016
Sure Azure might make some money but its a commodity business, I can't see how it will replace the old cash cows.
Are exclamation marks automatically removed? If so, can someone replace with a full stop?
1. Fiber optics - this is growing, and companies which have a lot of it are continuing to lay it out (albeit slowly). Also see, Altice's recent announcement. My hope is that post-election Google Fiber will ramp back up, simply for the legal defense of saying that they too are a cable company and the same laws should apply. In any case, consumers want it. High-end consumers will pay a premium, and the cost for urban footprint fill-out is not exorbitant.
2. Cable coaxial wire - this is a big thick wire that continues to upgrade nicely. DOCSIS 3.0 is basically the same old 1980s/1990s cable with better comms protocols. It's getting to the point to where they can compete on a reasonable basis with single strand fiber, at a lower speed and price point. So cable companies build out the back-end with fiber, but don't have to replant single homes.
3. Crappy copper telephone wire - this stuff is thin, it's painful to maintain and upgrade and always lags copper. Companies with a lot of this (Windstream, Verizon, AT&T, Frontier) are trying to run it for cash flow rather than spend a lot on upgrades. The telcos push fiber to the node, but it's a slow grind and involves very careful cost benefit analysis.
3 different technologies. 3 very different strategies. The election has further complicated things. Should VZ save up it's ammo and make a play for Sprint, Charter, Dish, or T-Mobile or invest in more broadband plants? I'd save the ammo given that Tom Wheeler is out on January 20th..
So 1/3 less, for twice as fast internet, or ~5x faster internet for the same price.
So, I don't really see why anyone with a choice would choose AT&T in my neighborhood.
Bandwidth is a scarce resource, and they're often the only seller for a given market. The more demand, the more the market will bear for that resource. The more contentious and oversubscribed their infrastructure, the more likely they are to make seemingly-convincing arguments for rent-seeking (Internet "fast-lanes"), deregulation (because competition lowers prices), and consolidation (more efficiency drives down prices), all of which they can leverage to increase profit while holding prices steady -- or raising them -- due to further-increasing demand.
Building and maintaining increased capacity increases their expenses and lowers the value of their product.
Why in the world would they invest? It would be the stupidest possible thing for a telco to do.
edit: it's worth my noting that my basis for asserting ever-increasing demand is that of induced demand for network services
I really like the approach that places like Longmont, CO are taking [http://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-e-m/...] or Greenlight in Rochester, NY. Love their pricing page:https://greenlightnetworks.com/pricing
I'm in Pittsburgh and have FIOS and that's set the price-performance bar at which I am not willing to drop below.
Time passes and few months ago there was a spin-off using that infrastructure for telecom (Copel Telecom ).
Great speed and reliability with a average price.
Ok, that was important at AT&T, but not really why Unix currently rules the universe. Due to anti-trust settlements and cheap licensing, and copyright foibles, Unix was the cheap midrange choice for students and non-enterprise users. After a lot of pain, Unix eventually evolved into an "open standard". And that eventually evolved into an "open source" standard with Linux (and BSD, MacOS, etc.) To quote DEC's Ken Olsen:
> [UNIX is] great for students, great for somewhat casual users, and its great for interchanging programs between different machines. ... It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. Theyll want a real system and will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
And that is why your cell phone runs Unix and not VMS.
> It didn't seem like a very good idea for us to be keeping records from > the inner sanctum of the corporation on a computer where most everybody > had super-user privileges. A call to the PR guy convinced him of the > wisdom of keeping such things on their own premises. And so the CEO's > office bought a Unix system.
This is why Jobs was the visionary. "[L]ine numbers and vanity" are real-world problems with technical solutions. When you bridge technology into the real world, to create solutions in real lives, then you create value.
It's painful to consider that something like UNIX could be worthless, but it was worthless ... until it improved somebody's life. This is something I have not fully learned yet.
I wonder how many meeting minutes, price lists, product specs, supplier agreements, etc. etc. are currently sitting on Google's, Amazon's, Dropbox's servers now...
One thing that is bothering me is that when you ask for `maya.when('tomorrow')`, or give only a date, you get back a timestamp with millisecond precision, representing 00:00 of that day. I understand this simplifies the implementation, but shouldn't `tomorrow` be a range, from 00:00 to 23:59?
Treating imprecise dates as ranges would allow for stuff like
# Did this event happen "yesterday" according to the US/Eastern time zone? timestamp in maya.when('yesterday', to_timezone='US/Eastern') # Get me all events that happened last Friday (UTC) [event for event in events if event.time in maya.when('2016-12-16')]
PS: it failed to install on Windows, so I opened an issue at https://github.com/kennethreitz/maya/issues/10
Arrow and pendulum (my current favorite) have a very decent API. The later one is especially well tested for the numerous corner cases of date handling, which I doubt Kenneth got right on first try.
For request, a full rewrite made sense because urllib sucked so much and we had no good alternatives. But for date time, alternative exists and they are good. Do not split the open source effort, join forces!
A lot of Python is really solved. We don't argue about using requests (a not-coincidental example). If you're using Python, and you need to deal with http, you use requests. Everyone knows this.
There are basically 3 platforms for web frameworks. Flask, Pyramid, and Django. Maybe we're a little more dissolute than C# or Ruby folks, but that's pretty impressive considering how much we Python people like to roll our own.
The fact that there is real disagreement about this among ourselves about this particular issue says to me that this is more about the difficulty of the problem than it is anything else.
>>> dt = maya.now() >>> dt.datetime() datetime.datetime(2016, 12, 18, 19, 24, 50, 212663, tzinfo=<UTC>) >>> dt.datetime('Europe/Budapest') datetime.datetime(2016, 12, 18, 20, 24, 50, 212663, tzinfo=<UTC>)
My only real question:
> rand_day = maya.when('2011-02-07', timezone='US/Eastern')
This returning an object representing a DateTime on the 6th (in UTC time) strikes me as perhaps "not for humans."
If I just see that line casually, I think I expect to get a Date and for it to be the 7th.
It looks like, in order to get this (arguably expected) object, I need to take the resulting MayaDT epoch and run its `datetime` method, passing naive=True?
And I also see that _tz can only ever be pytz.timezone('UTC') - is this the result of some belief that timezones are illusions or something? :-)
For a while, I have kinda thought that timezones foment a confused mental model of time and teamwork. I prefer to think in terms of the astronomy - it's not actually a different time anywhere else, it's just that the sun is at a different position relative to the rest of the earth (and thus, ones faraway teammates and loved ones).
Anyway, thanks for yet another set of interesting ideas. Hope you are well.
And i18n support in humanize is a bit lacking, as it only translates to French, Korean and Russian. Given that most of the translations needed to render human dates can be found in the CLDR database, maintaining their own looks like a bit of a wasted effort.
1) Whenever dealing with users, use local tz. 2) Always save and manipulate in utc.
Anything with date/time calculations is always a pain, probably doesn't really have much to do with the library/language itself, but that the abstraction level that's used (and typically used in other libraries) means that the complexities of calendar and time systems are sprinkled all over application code.
I do have to notice here that always using UTC is not always the right thing to do. For example, evaluating rrules in UTC is rather error-prone (DST).
>>> import ago >>> import dateutil >>> ago.human(dateutil.parser.parse('Fri Jun 29 19:25:55 2012')) '4 years, 172 days ago' The current implementation is 66 lines of code including docstrings:
# Automatically parse datetime strings and generate naive datetimes. >>> scraped = '2016-12-16 18:23:45.423992+00:00' >>> maya.parse(scraped).datetime(to_timezone='US/Eastern', naive=True) datetime.datetime(2016, 12, 16, 13, 23, 45, 423992)
> Maya never panics, and always carrys a towel.
I guess it would help with like, "X happened before Y" situations, but I don't think I'd trust my eyes for that!
I think I would of preferred the "this happened in X month" case instead, I find it easier to trust my eyes for that, instead of trying to look for differing digits!
- - -
UTC default is a godsend though
(...) take my very early comments with a grain of salt -- they refer to the progress as of this commit .
I love Requests -- its API design is fantastic, and manages to distill down most of a complex problem domain to a clean, dare-I-say, elegant API.So I can eagerly anticipate this design applied to datetimes. But the progress being shown so far is definitely not it.
>>> tomorrow = maya.when('tomorrow')
Why is "tomorrow" a precise-to-centisecond, infinitesimally small point on a giant cosmic timeline? I'm reasonably sure it's an abstract concept that describes the calendar day that starts after the current calendar day ends.
At least, Pendulum normalizes tomorrow() and its ilk to represent midnight on the given day , while Delorean's natural language methods  like next_day() advance the day while leaving the time-of-day unchanged, but the method name makes this fairly clear.
Even Arrow, which is heavily inspired by Moment.js to the point of conflating every single datetime idea into the same class, opts for mutators that are still more clear .
> Timezones fit in here somewhere...
Yeah, this needs more work.
Java 8 / Threeten, and its predecessor Joda-Time took the approach of clearly modeling each and every concept that humans actually use to describe time; even if you take issue with their API, the designers have clearly done their homework, and their data model is solid.
Formats like TOML wrestled with datetimes and realized  that datetimes aren't just woefully underspecified in most other specs and APIs, but that they're frequently mis-modeled, so they adopted large portions of Threeten's data model. Cases like this should merit strong consideration from anyone trying to propose new datetime APIs today.
 https://github.com/kennethreitz/maya/commit/ecd0166ba215c1a5....  https://pendulum.eustace.io/docs/#instantiation  http://delorean.readthedocs.io/en/latest/quickstart.html#nat....  http://crsmithdev.com/arrow/#replace-shift  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12364805  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13190314#13190657
Anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence, I know that. And the pharma companies are really just the worst. I have seen these things really work though.
EDIT: It's funny, but people never seem to question if modern American life actually, you know, is good for mental health. Maybe people are mentally ill because the world is super effing weird and hard to adjust to?
Life can get to a point where it's miserable with OCD. It is exactly like a frog in water that's slowly boiling, that you don't recognize things are getting as bad as they are until one day you just kind of feel REALLY shitty and recognize something is wrong.
Medication can really help get over that hump in treatment, and honestly has made it possible for me to accept the problems for what they are. This allows me to move into a "better" place in my own head and be more open and ready for therapy, which I believe gives the far more valuable tools to overcome problems.
I have seen a few different doctors in my life, and NEVER has one of them only recommended medication. In fact most have said exactly the above, that medicine should be an enabler to make other therapy more helpful. Maybe I've just gotten lucky with good doctors, but I kind of think this is a common suggestion.
A lot of people on here are complaining about big pharma, but my generics cost like 2-3 bucks a month. I don't think GSK and Pfzier are exactly making bank off my mental conditions...
I haven't read the book in this piece and not to knock on journalists but there are things about mental illness you just won't learn without exposure to it and actually working to help people recover. There is a massive problem with over prescription and this idea that mental illness can be 'cured' with medications and medications alone which is absolute flummery (but if you look at what medications bring in the most revenue, the fact this persists shouldn't surprise you).
Biggest take away is that you shouldn't view drugs as necessarily bad as this piece implies. They aren't. When you have a patient who is so depressed they can't get out of bed or another whose auditory hallucinations intensify to the point of violence the drugs are necessary but they aren't a cure. Getting over mental illness requires social support but it does at times also require psychotropic meds.
And don't get me started on the bullshit pushed by pharma a few years ago that people in pain can't get addicted to opiates. I loose it almost every time.
I find this attitude perplexing. Instead of facing the problem(s), drug your mind so you're less aware of the sadness it's causing you. Reminds me of the soma in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
And yes, I recognize that there are certain people who suffer from major clinical depression. By all means, prescribe then anti-depressants. I just think that our brains experience sadness for a reason: it's a signal that something is wrong in our life and that we need to change it.
It's difficult for me to believe that traits prevalent in 10% or more of the population are actually "disorders". They must have been advantageous in some past situations in order to be passed on so much, or at least not selected against. Right?
So what is it about our environment that makes these traits disadvantageous? Or is that even true? Maybe "mental illness" is an appropriate response to the injustices and impossibilities of modern life. How could we _not_ be having an epidemic of "mental illness" right now given the profound disruptions our society has endured in the last fifty years?
Psych drugs seem to me like a case of "you can't get enough of what you don't really need". An alternate view is that they're like a shoehorn---they're there to help normal people conform to the impossible expectations of society. But maybe we don't really need shoehorns for 10% of the population---maybe instead we need to learn to wear sandals or go barefoot.
Sorry, I know it's a stretched metaphor. And now I'm done.
I wonder if these "measures" tried to account for the fact that the idea of "mental health" is something that we as a society have only recently tried to destigmatize and normalize. Seems to me that even just a decade or two ago many mental health issues were something you brushed under the rug or something that "other people" had to deal with but "never me". Could it just be the case that many more people are finally coming forward with issues that they had all along?
1. We have an older population -- suicide rates increase with age. 
2. We have a less religious population -- Christians, Buddhists and Muslims all have lower suicide rates than Atheists. 
3. We have a lower worker participation rate -- Unemployment is associated with higher suicide rates. Although most of the decrease in work in the US is voluntary, there is still a plausible link. 
 https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/suicidologi/article/do... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...
The core of his argument appears to be that because the brain tends to compensate for disequilibrium, psych drugs in the long-term paradoxically have the opposite effect that they do short-term - anti-depressants are depressogenic, anti-psychotics increase long-term psychosis, etc
She also in recent years added medical mj bars (thankfully we live in Denver) and she would carefully cut up bars into smaller dosages (around 10mg each I believe) and take one of those every 3 hours roughly.
Ultimately this was the combo, along with a good multi-vitiman that really helped her regain a normal life.
While over prescribing may be a real problem, I think they mischaracterize how psych meds are prescribed. I've had several people in my life who suffer from severe mental illness and finding the right meds for these people has been a long and difficult process. I've sat in on many an appointment and never have I seen the flippant attitudes towards prescribing these meds that this article implies are widespread.
One of the data points describes the amount of people taking antipsychotics. The article fails to tell how a lot of psych meds, like antipsychotics, have off-label used. For example, seroquel is a sleep medication in low doses. That would count as taking an antipsychotic even though the dosage is a tenth of that needed for an antipsychotic effect. This article fails to describe how psychiatric medications really are complicated.
When experts in the same field looking at the same case can't agree even a little bit on best course of action, maybe it's not really science.
Adderal is indistinguishable from methamphetamine, and Ritalin has similar effects. Prescribing too high of a dose will result in effects that are very similar to abusing illegal methamphetamine.
It's not at all tenable for other externalities to bring underlying mental illnesses to the forefront, nope, not at all.
What lazy thinking.
I don't where a causal relation is demonstrated.
I've tried a several anti-depressants over the past twenty-two years with no long-term success.
My GP's approach to severe depression was to 'change my outlook.' A few years ago when I saw a psychiatrist, they were quick with the drugs, and, at the time, I was thankful.
This was mirtazapine / remeron.
The first two or three months were fine -- a slight improvement that was enough to give me hope. It wasn't until about two years of constant suicidal thoughts (to an obsessive / fantasy level) that I realized that this wasn't the drug for me.
With the mirtazapine and the thoughts, the suggestion was that I add another drug to fight the suicidal / obsessive side. Seeing as these thoughts were the reason I was taking the drug to begin with, I turned down that idea. I was also aware of how easy it is to get into the balancing act of multiple medications, and I didn't want to swing that again. That's when I decided (against the wishes of everyone) to go drug-free.
It was suggested that I take close to a year to ween myself off of the little pills -- but I figured I could do it in two months. While I was able to do it, I had an extra two months of cold sweats, extremely believable nightmares, and general withdrawal. It was much worse than anything I've ever experienced.
When I first expressed the feeling that the medication had stopped working, the response was to up the dosage. This wouldn't be a bad thing if I weren't exhibiting a good portion of the side effects.
The best solution for me was a ten-week group therapy CBT 'course' provided by the local hospital's outpatient care. We watched clips from 'What About Bob?', focused on 4-7-8 breathing techniques (also fantastic for those with anxiety), and discussed the aspects of the illness that we felt were most shameful.
In externalizing the depression and suicidal thoughts, there was an amazing transformation that came through the validation from the others that I wasn't alone in the struggle. For me, this has been far more effective than any drug I've tried over the past twenty-two years, and I'd suggest it to anyone -- either standalone or in combination with medication.
I'm not completely free of these thoughts or desires, but when they do come up, I now have rational, logical tools to address them and move on. For anyone in the struggle, look into what your local hospital has to offer.
They are not the only approach to treatment. There are many others we know may provide a benefit such as cognitive behavioral therapy and many others. It depends on the patient.
I think it's useful to review the medical practice guidelines; they collect the relevant evidence in one place and recommend treatments based on them. American Psychiatric Association guidelines can be found here:
For example, lets take the Major Depressive Disorder 2010 Guidelines since it covers the most prevalent mental health issue. It is divided in three sections:
>Background Information and Review of Available Evidence
>Future Research Needs
Many treatment modalities for the acute phase are suggested: pharmacotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy, psychotherapy and association of pharmaco- and psychotherapies.
The discussion of the efficacy of antidepressants starts on page 33. Here's a few important lines:
>A large body of literature supports the superiority of SSRIs compared with placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder
>Each of these medications [SNRIs] is efficacious (i.e., superior to placebo in controlled studies and meta-analyses)
>Mirtazapine has comparable efficacy to SSRIs
>Although trazodone is an effective antidepressant, relative to placebo, in contemporary practice it is much more likely to be used in lower doses as a sedative-hypnotic than as an antidepressant
>Despite widespread use of trazodone as a hypnotic, few data support its use for this indication
>In comparative trials versus SSRIs, nefazodone showed comparable efficacy and overall tolerability
>Tricyclic antidepressants are effective treatments for major depressive disorder and have comparable efficacy to other classes of antidepressants, including SSRIs, SNRIs, and MAOIs
>MAOIs have comparable efficacy to other antidepressants for outpatients with major depressive disorder and may be appropriate for patients with major depressive disorder who have not responded to safer and more easily used treatments
It's well-established that modern psychotropic medications are effective treatments. Choosing among them and offering the patient the most appropriate medication is a complex process. In particular, the appearance of side effects and how well they are tolerated must be monitored.
Of course, general health advice applies. Regular exercise is likely to improve mental condition. However, I've never had the experience where a severely depressed person suddenly got motivated, started exercising regularly and got better. In fact, reduced energy and decreased activity is one of many signs of depression.
That he then has the aesthetic capability to knock out a beautiful fucking box for the cartridge is just humbling.
Nintendo really pulled off some impressive feats back in those days.
I wonder just how wildly impractical it would have been to build such outboard hardware acceleration into a cartridge in 1998.
I cleared the game in a single lunch hour, but I'm not disappointed. The game design easily surpasses anything I've ever played on my phone, and there's a bucket of replayability. Pink/purple/black coins to get, speed runs on rally to try, etc.
Giving the first 3 levels for free was a good move - the install is essentially a demo that is enough to let a customer decide if they want to front for the whole game.
I didn't have a problem paying, but I've read a lot of whining on twitter and other places. Younger gamers have an expectation that everything on mobile should be free, but kudos to Nintendo on having the balls to stay away from cheap pay2win tricks and stick to an old school pricing model.
I don't know if it's going to turn a profit, but I really hope so. This race to the bottom amongst mobile game devs is madness and has to stop.
My favorite games are the ones that embody some sense of freedom, and I just don't get that here (at least not from the first 3 levels). I completely understand Nintendo's decision to go with the single-finger jump-only game mechanic for a touchscreen device (I've never been a fan of virtual D-pads). But unfortunately, that decision has transformed Mario from a game about discovery and freedom into a game where you're - quite literally - not allowed to stop and take a second look at something.
As a natural consequence of this change in game mechanics, we seem to be forced into a constant state of hyper-focused speeding through what might otherwise be an attractive setting with subtleties to be explored. If I pass something that looks interesting in Super Mario Run, I'll likely never see it again (no, I'm not really motivated to repeat levels for coins - but I would be inclined to explore new paths through the game if I weren't always forced to be on the run).
Making matters worse, the few times I did attempt to explore a little (by jumping back off the walls), the clock ran out in what felt like an unreasonably short time compared to other Mario games.
In the back of my mind, it feels as though this change reflects something more profound about how society has evolved in the past decade. Maybe our competitive and demanding nature has overshadowed the desire for individual discovery and creativity. We don't need a landscape-oriented view of the horizon anymore; we only care about what's immediately at hand in our myopic view of the world because, let's face it, this is 2016 and we're too lazy to flip our phones around to landscape mode, let alone to confront the harrowing idea of plotting our own course through life. Just put us on the conveyor belt and tell us when to jump - and how high.
OK, that may be taking it a bit too far, but I'm still not buying the full game - and it has nothing to do with the price.
Now I really want that.
I had signed in on my iPhone then also set it up on my ipad. After finishing a few levels on the iPad i went back to my phone.
The phone let me finish a level, THEN came up and said 'cant progress as you're signed in on another device' and the app crashed.
what the fuck is the point of signing up for an account if it doesnt even sync across devices
After playing just one level, you can tell that Super Mario Run the real deal and not a cash-in (and it gets hard, especially if you want to get Black Coins). If you have an aversion to mobile gaming, give this a try.
You can play 3 levels without having to pay anything and it doesn't nag you until then, which means that Nintendo only gets your money if they can convince you if it's worth it. And they do.
PS: This website is ridiculous. It takes forever to load up, and the marketing video is just a stupid video of a bunch of people doing parkour in slow motion or some junk like that. They probably spent 6 figures on that dumb video that nobody really gives a crap about. Then there's another loading screen after the video, and once that's done there's a really crappy UI for a slideshow that's not even responsive. IMO, idiotic executives fingerprints are all over this shitshow with bad decisions left and right. Nintendo is a fantastic company who is capable of amazing things, but they don't really get the web or mobile technology. Sad!
- splash page that has to load the background video before you can do anything.
- you have to start watching the video on the splash page to skip it.
- horizontal navigation in the about page.
- clicking the obscure "here we go!" back link in the about page has to reload the video before you can do anything.
It looks really nice, but the interaction is incredibly slow and cumbersome.
I have yet to find a good solution for finding the gems and avoiding the cruft of the various stores.
Not going to lie, no matter how great the game is, I'm pretty disappointed.
case 'zh':location.href = _WARP_ + 'ch/index.html';break;
A new kind of Mario game you can play with one hand. Mario constantly runs forward, while you time your taps to pull off stylish jumps and moves to gather coins and reach the goal!
That said, it's not looking very good at the moment, and has fallen consistently from days before release, and still falling this morning.
And also.. It brings back childhood memories to play Mario.
This will fit right along my daughters' other 96 run games.
Have we reached 200 yet?
And lots of people buys it not because of nostalgia but because you must respect classics to claim you have good taste.
The world of mobile games is infinite bullshit.
Maybe it's good, but deceptive enough I uninstalled it.
> If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won.
I should note that Django isn't planning to add more backends to the core project, and has actually discussed moving some into separate packages. But that doesn't mean a backend couldn't be developed by the Organisation.
Now, the one thing I've heard from everyone is that the SQL Server tooling is beyond belief, and I believe it. If there is one weakness in the open source RDBMS world it's tooling. With such as large and obvious gap how is it that no one has filled it yet? Will no one pay for tooling? Are there tools available but the quality is not there? Seems like a good candidate for someone to fill a niche and possible make a successful business.
Balmer was jumping across the stage yelling Developers, Developers, Developers! Now someone in Redmond is executing and pushing the applications and tools platforms. It will be interesting to see where this leaves Windows in the medium term.
Also, what would happen (if anything) if the Linux results crushed the Windows ones? Would that be embarrassing to Microsoft? And to take the thought to the next level of paranoia, let's say Microsoft already ran those benchmarks in-house and found the Linux version vastly faster. To avoid embarrassment, would they slow it down to be more in line with the Windows version?
Now if they can just fix windows, I might start using that too. Maybe WindowsX? I do enjoy using VSCode on Mac!
So easy for some ;) Not to not applaud their efforts though.
Sybase 126.96.36.199 for Linux was made free for production use somewhere around 2002. It is still useful for some applications, if you can find the binaries, http://froebe.net/blog/2013/03/10/howto-installing-and-runni...
I've always thought that Microsoft's operating systems were the Albatross around their neck. Their apps and systems are OK. Having those available on a superior OS, like Linux would be good for the world, and MS.
Buying canonical would probably be the quickest way.
Thank Microsoft... good one
In addition to clib mentioned in this list, there's also CCAN. It's another collection of small C libraries, but unlike clib and this list, the libraries are maintained as a single project (for better or worse).
I'd love to see some more convergence on library search and package management for C. I was glad to see clib and CCAN consider coordinating. Hopefully that effort will eventually bear fruit.
1. https://github.com/clibs/clib2. https://ccodearchive.net/3. https://github.com/clibs/clib/issues/69
The implementation design was a trade-off between minimizing redundancy and minimizing dependencies (and inter-dependencies). Ultimately I decided minimal dependencies would be more appealing to the user.
 shameless plug: https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus
I often need some simple thing that can take input from Stdin while I'm piping stuff around in a bash script. Like telling me the db audio level of a mp3 file while reading through all the files in a directory.
>Q. Why isn't SQLite's amalgamated build on this list?
>A. Come on.
For the answer, look at the SQLite Amalgamation page
>1. Executive Summary
>Over 100 separate source files are concatenated into a single large files of C-code named "sqlite3.c" and called "the amalgamation". The amalgamation contains everything an application needs to embed SQLite. The amalgamation file is more than 180,000 lines long and over 6 megabytes in size.
So although it's technically a single file, at 180 000 lines and 6 Megabytes, it's not really in the spirit of the page.
Check out the faculty list at Harvard Business school [link below]. I randomly looked at profiles of 14 of them and not a single one had real world business experience. If there are any who do have real world experience, it's often superficial.
To carry on this article's analogy, business schools are the Catholic church of 1500: incestuous, detached, and self-serving.
Harvard Busisness school faculty: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/browse.aspx
* Business is more competitive than ever. But in reality, we have more monopolies and duopolies than ever. Peter Thiel's "Zero to One" is all about how to achieve monopoly. Businesses in the US hate competing on price. Without strong antitrust enforcement, which the US hasn't had in decades, the number of players decreases until there's no price competition. How many Internet providers can you choose from in the US? How many in the UK or Germany?
* We live in an age of entrepreneurialism. But the big companies are making all the money. The Economist writes: "A large number of businesspeople who were drawn in by the cult of entrepreneurship encountered only failure and now eke out marginal existences with little provision for their old age." All YC applicants should read that.
* Business is getting faster. They compare the fast rise of the automobile. Electricity and aircraft were also deployed faster than the Internet. Progress in the first 50 years of aviation zoomed like the semiconductor industry. Then in the late 1960s, it was all done - the Concorde, the Boeing 747, the SR-71, and the Saturn V had all flown. Everything since then has been a minor improvement.
* Globalisation is both inevitable and irreversible. The Economist comments "In 1880-1914 the world was in many ways just as globalised as it is today; it still fell victim to war and autarky." The causes of World War One are worth studying. Nobody really wanted it, and it happened anyway. Before WWI, Germany's biggest trading partner was France.
I'm reminded of the story of garbagemen strike that brought New York City to their knees, while the Irish Banking Crisis caused only a blip because people turned to alternative forms of currency. Real managers provide real value solving real problems, and are well liked by their employees. Unfortunately most management nowadays is awful, and needs to be pruned.
The professionalisation of management surely has problems but it's important to at least characterise the prevailing orthodoxy accurately...and this article does not.
"The backlash against globalisation points to a glaring underlying weakness of management theory: its naivety about politics. Modern management orthodoxies were forged in the era from 1980 to 2008, when liberalism was in the ascendant and middle-of-the-road politicians were willing to sign up to global rules. But todays world is very different. Productivity growth is dismal in the West, companies are fusing at a furious rate, entrepreneurialism is stuttering, populism is on the rise and the old rules of business are being torn up. "
It is worrisome how much people pay for books that teach things that are plainly wrong. They mention Thomas Friedmans The World is Flat but there are a lot of others they could have listed. For the last 40 years there has been almost constant rhetoric from business writers about the way that business was becoming more and more competitive, and yet the numbers show that exactly the opposite was happening: new business creation has been in decline since the 1970s, and consolidation means that business has become less and less competitive for the last 40 years. Monopolies have become more common. Patent laws and copyrights have been extended to make monopoly easier. It is true that if you are trying to start a new business, the situation has become increasingly bleak since the 1970s, so from the point of view of someone just starting out, things have become harder, and perhaps some people mean that when they say "things are more competitive". But that isn't the competition of one business against another, that's the competition of one worker against another. We should be clear about our terminology.
And that's even more true because the airline example is actually flawed. Not all consolidation reduces competition. Look at the past few years, where Delta bought Continental and American and US Airways merged. You'd say that the number of "major" carriers dropped by two. Fine... now look at the Alaska Airlines / Virgin America merger... arguably Alaska is now on the cusp of becoming a "major" carrier, which can compete with the likes of American, Delta, United and Southwest.
So it was consolidation, but did it make things more or less oligarchical? The answer isn't as straight-forward as you might think. Likewise, the acquisition of Airtran by Southwest may actually have created my competition by giving Southwest more planes, gates, and routes - including their first few international routes.
None of this is to say that "management theory" is complete, perfect, or even useful. But this article fails to convince me that it's all just "dead ideas" either.
Most people go for the 'network' and the validation that the school gives you. So no matter how outdated their curriculum gets, as long as
a) their current alums promote and guide future ones (shouldn't be any problem)
b) They are able to continuously source smart people
c) Nobody comes up with a better alternative system to identifying future leaders
These schools should have no problem.
IMO, (a) will never be a problem for these schools. The supply of smart undergrads/students is also assured given our innate inertia, FOMO and the perceived lack of growth in non-mba fields as we grow older.
Thus, (c) i.e. somebody coming up with a better metric/validation mechanism to source top leaders should be the biggest concern for these schools.
The lack of formalism and accountability in the curriculum (specially in the softer subjects) means that it's unlikely any one finding/study/trend can deal a major blow to these institutions. For every Enron, they can cite a Jack Welch.
tl;dr: Slow gradual change/reflection is unlikely to change these schools much. Disruption is what's needed.
"The theorists third ruling idea is that business is getting faster. There is some truth in this. Internet firms can acquire hundreds of millions of customers in a few years. But in some ways this is less impressive than earlier roll-outs: well over half of American households had motor cars just two decades after Henry Ford introduced the first moving assembly line in 1913. And in many respects business is slowing down. Firms often waste months or years checking decisions with various departments (audit, legal, compliance, privacy and so on) or dealing with governments ever-expanding bureaucracies. The internet takes away with one hand what it gives with the other. Now that it is so easy to acquire information and consult with everybody (including suppliers and customers), organisations frequently dither endlessly."
It's not even clear that the four ideas cited in the magazine are actually prevalent in management theory. The piece itself did almost nothing to substantiate that.
One of the best books on management theory is War and Peace. The central idea in war is simply that good lieutenants are more useful and more rare than the sycophants and adjutants who circle the chiefs of staff.
One of the second best ideas about management is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership
The main job of managers is to make the lives and tasks of competent individual contributors go more smoothly.
This a weak premise whose scant evidence is primarily composed of pop business airport books. And the idea that the vast, diverse, and nebulous world of management can be distilled to four ideas is a joke.
With all that said, here's a little background as well. I manage a team of folks who are in charge of IT infrastructure and deployment. Mobile devices, servers, VPNs, virtualization setups, as well as database administration and some non-customer facing coding to keep everything going, all the way down to the desktop setups for employees. I work with maybe 30 people underneath me and there can't be more than 100 of us all together. Each of my 30 team members are tasked with different tings in accordance to the rough outline i speak to above.
Now, to the good bits
1) If i learned anything, from being the manager to before that, its a really really simple thing. Don't ever forget where you came from. Ever. I often will think about making a decision - some big, some small - and I remind myself 'What would my reaction be if i wasn't a manager, but underneath me? How would I react to this? Positive? Negative? Why?' I find that my best manager did this all the time, and it really showed because he was one of us before he was a manager (for my company this is typical, we don't get a lot of outside management for our group that hasn't at least had some experience on the basics of what we do). The reason for this is to me obvious, in that you will better understand the actual core of your decisions affects this way. Its easy to forget all this in the day to day, but its a huge one.
Specifically, it has benefited in that some changes that came down from those who manage me, were immediately rejected because I was able to articulate, in a way they could understand, why the new change would be bad. For instance, they wanted to take away our hands-on Lab for testing new technologies (this is a good part of what we do, to keep up on things) and go to a more virtual one. In theory this seems okay, there's a lot of companies that do this (Cisco, itpro.tv, VMware, all have these kinda things) but I made the case that no, have it hands on, with good training attached to the hands on labs, was a more effective on the whole, and it cost less, because we could dedicate a rotation of people to learn something, teach it to the team, and then the team gets to test it, and they rotate into to teaching back, until we feel the technology is well covered to at least a 'intermediate' level for all members on our team. With the virtualization, this was lost, and they had to pay more for the licenses. It ended up being better for us because we could just get labs setup, get documentation/official manuals/training material, learn it, and teach it over the course of x weeks to everyone else, and they could then come in to the lab when there was allotted time, break stuff, fix stuff etc. and round it went.
2) One of the best things I ever learned as well, is that if someone or someone's is designated as a point of contact, they should be treated as such for a project. For instance, if I designated Steve the networking guy as my point of contact for network related projects that I need someone to oversee, I essentially report to him, with some exceptions, instead of him reporting to me about the project. This gives them freedom, and gets them into a position where they can also learn good managing skills or at least, focus on big picture things for awhile. I don't micro manage, I philosophically meet my team half way. If things that we have as objectives are being met, and are exceeding expectations, then i give more leeway. I will always stick up for them if they in turn do good work, and the more good work that is produced, the more freedom I'm willing to allow. This has created a huge win for the company as well, as our team is small, but incredibly productive.
3) Don't try to sanitize feedback. This isn't a 'be a jerk' card, but team members who want to improve honestly like feedback, and give it to them honestly. Good and bad. One thing old managers i know used to do is never talk about the things I did well - to reinforce those things, is the purpose - but only talk about how we could improve. My best manager, and a skill i keep as well, is whenever I do check in with my team in a 1 on 1 way, we talk about what they're doing that is amazing and great, and then we talk about area's of imrovement, and relate it back to 'so these are your core strengths, how can you apply what makes these your core strengths to these problems?" that really gives people a lot of motivation in my experience
4) If you make a commitment to someone, meet it, obviously huge unexpected things aside that you can't plan for, this generally is huge. Not forgetting say, asking upper management for x thing on their behalf (our company works this way a lot, though we're trying to change that). or even just follow up when you say you will. If you do miss it, explain why, honestly, and then go from there
5) Training is important. invest in your team, your team invests in you, and that makes for a great company to work for, have as a client, and essentially helps you grow. It took our company some time to realize this, but now they're full on.
6) Rotate their roles, but don't push overly hard for people to do what they don't like unless there really is a specific reason. and I'm not talking about ' I don't like putting notes together detailing these implementations'. There are musts in every job, and enforce those across the board. I'm talking more 'okay, so, you been doing the networking for like a year, year and half, are you okay, burned out, want to try something new?' this lets people pick up new skills, maintain those skills, and apply their previous work experience on your team in different ways. We're team 'swiss army' internally for this reason :) and my headcount is smaller than the next guys, but we're always rated one of the top teams. I think this has a lot to do with it. (out of 4 teams, granted)
7) you can be of great value as a manager if you learn to filter what is actually nessacary and what isn't from upper management before talking to your team about their goals/expectations. See my example on the virtual labs. My team didn't know that was even a consideration until another manager in the same meeting mentioned it to their team. by that time, it was dead, and my team was grateful they didn't have to waste time thinking about it.
8) If someone is bad hire, and your team isn't working because of this, don't be afraid to do something about it. you're a manager, sometimes doing hard things like firing someone or moving them into a different position they're more skilled for is something you need to recongize early. this goes along with my next point....
9) if your team members come to you saying somehting about how they are being treated by others, take it at face value, look into it, and have their back. Always. Always. Always. Never dismiss this. I had an incident where someone was being discriminated against based on their sex by an older team mate who i think just had it in their head from a different time what the role of that person was and wasn't, and I had recently assigned them as a project lead. I didn't tell them to deal with it, I looked into it, asked a trusted colleague to talk to some folks about it (not revealing the nature, just said 'Hey man, could you do me a favor? coud you ask around and get a feel for what people are getting a vibe about person x? I want some imparitialness to this' Idk if that violates policy in HR or not, but for me it worked well, i squashed it quickly and made it VERY clear what isn't tolerated on my team in a short amount of time, but it also came down to the person who was saying things that were considred sexist didn't realize what they had going on was just a reflection of insecurities. Sometimes you're being the psychologist therapist and working them through those feelings so they can understand what happened. I didn't end up having to separate them or fire anyone in this case, because that person came to an understanding and the person in charge separately was okay working from a clean slate as long as it didn't continue, once they understand what triggered what. Now they both work together extremely well and are both happy.
Anyways, that's my experience. I'm no lawyer, no MBA, and your mileage may vary, esp. on that last bit, but these are some representations and guidelines i follow often.
This is a management class who skate along looking for the next opportunity to rinse repeat the same playbook. There is no leadership or imagination here.
There is a crisis of leadership, a crisis of accountability, an elitist club who look out for each other and extreme compensation with parachutes even for failure.
The whole field of management has not delivered a single good idea, its taken individuals who go against the wind to show a glimpse of the possibilites leaving in their wake the tedious industry of management courses and case studies as magic formulas for success that outside of their original context have no chance of replication.
Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), Narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), Psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), Sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others);
The author should consider reading a book published after 2005.
Not that I'm a huge fan of the genre, to be honest. Way too often I basically see management books arguing that domain skill in the subject managed is immaterial and I could not disagree more with that.
Also, I'm curious what metrics he's assessing for "productivity growth is dismal in the west." It's precisely because of productivity growth that we can envision an economy where centralization and globalization are not inevitable forces.
The Streisand VPN includes a Tor Bridge by default, so if you ever have problems with an advanced firewall that blocks most VPN protocols, Streisand with Tor is your friend.
Tor Bridges are also a nice playground for modern cryptography, they are working on PQ Crypto: https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/isis/torspec.git/plain/pr...
Does Turkey still have a key the gov can use to mitm connections terminating there?
And if so, can someone make instructions in Turkish on how to blacklist the Turkish TLS certs in mainstream browsers so that the gov can't mitm their own citizens?
For that matter, I don't want a Turkish root of trust in my own browser either, but the list of roots in our browsers is so long it's kinda meaningless to start zapping them - I mean, who trusts Verisign anyway?
Hang around lowendtalk / lowendbox and rent a tiny dir cheap VPS. Just SSH there and use the SOCKS5 proxy built into SSH. I hope they will not block SSH any time soon.
If they do you can set up a HTTPS website on your VPS with a secret proxy.
For some reason, a lot of Turks still seem to support Erdogan. The West doesn't really care what he does, as long as Turkey takes care of most of the refugees.
A disgusting European policy.
Boycott everything turkish is the only thing we can do as normal persons I guess. That is at least what I've done for a long while now.
I think it would be helpful if the press would 'name names' in terms of the companies that are enabling this.
Which I totally agree with. When this situation started unrolling it really offended my sense of justice. Here were criminals using the judicial system as the tool for their crimes. It really showed how the US judicial systems costs and processes have created a mechanism for abuse. I wish sometimes there were some criminal law around abuse of a public institution which would capture this sort of thing more quickly and effectively.
>The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
> Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982).
> they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settlefor a sum ... just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals, resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with illegally downloading porn. So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry.
Update: Camcast confirms account is owned by Steele.
But the part that I really find interesting is this:
>>Character is destiny. ....they're spiteful, entitled, arrogant douches. That led to their downfall
I say bullshit. Just look at Trump. The guy has fucked over so many people and sexually assaulted many woman by his own words and we still elected him.
It let to their downfall because they were not powerful enough.
If they were creating "art" in form of porn they had copyright to said work. No law broken here.
No law broken if you upload your own work to the cloud. You have right to do it.
Finally, no law broken if you try to pursue those who illegally download your copyrighted work.
I guess if you combine all of those together then you doing something wrong. But isn't it ironic that the GOV is allowed to run illegal sting operations even if they lose big time like in Fast and Furious and that's fine, but if few lawyers figure out the way to make extra money, then we need to indict them.
If anything -- were they actually a fish who happen to clean the ocean? I mean it comes to be as simple as this: do not download illegal porn. Period. I can bet after being charged by those lawyers many settled and never downloaded porn again.
There - finished playing devils advocate.
alias sleepsafe='sudo pmset -a destroyfvkeyonstandby 1 hibernatemode 25' alias sleepfast='sudo pmset -a hibernatemode 0' alias sleepdefault='sudo pmset -a hibernatemode 3'
Day-to-day, I use `sleepfast`, which is faster than the default hybrid sleep, because it doesn't spend time copying the contents of memory to disk.
I very rarely switch to `sleepdefault` which is the insecure and slower hybrid sleep.
This has been a known issue for yearshttp://osxdaily.com/2013/07/06/maximize-filevault-security-d...https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/02/02/filevault-encryp...
1. FDE is extremely limited. This particular attack is a clever abuse of sleep/reboot cycles, but of course people intimately familiar with FDE know that if a laptop is sleeping but not shut down it's already perilously close to the boundary at which FDE breaks down. And, of course, once it's woken up and unlocked --- which every attacker who actually challenges FDE can arrange for, all bets are off.
2. When flaws like this are found, the OS vendors have much more recourse than third parties do, which is why this post concludes by saying that Macs are now the most secure laptop platform with respect to DMA attacks against FDE.
Use FDE! Enable it on all your machines! But try not to rely on it, and don't waste too much time optimizing it.
Anyways, at this point in time it's nice to read (from the authors of the exploit): "The mac is now one of the most secure platforms with regards to this specific attack vector."
But what worries me somewhat is that the tools for mitigation for these families of attacks include a lot of technologies that are traditionally opposed by the community here on the grounds that it "takes away control from the user.
I'm not sure how we balance out those tensions, but attacks like this sure as heck concern me about my homebuilt machine. I do my best not to keep any important keys there.
Is the update an EFI update which disables DMA or does it with IOMMU? Or is the memory just overwritten on boot?
I'm also quite surprised they leave the password in memory in multiple locations. - Assuming the password is only used to derive the KEK for the actual key.
I'm still using it instead of Sierra because of Karabiner but this could force me to upgrade.
That vulnerability seems to be a pretty obvious oversight. I remember hearing about DMA (in the context of Firewire) as an attack vector since people first started talking of Truecrypt and Filevault and scrubbing the memory seems obvious... It's worrying that this could have been overlooked by Apple's engineers.
Same thing with the iPhone. Even though it has solid FDE, there have been exploits if the phone is on (even with a passcode, etc).
Turning off your device is the best protection, even if you have FDE.
Not sure these are mitigating the OP issue though. Still, can't be bad to harden macOS a little bit.
What you have to realize is how important Security is to Shopify. We are a trust based business to an extreme extend. We host the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of other businesses. If we are down or compromised all of them can't make money ( as some of you saw during Black Friday, to the tune of $300k+ a minute at times ).
One of the best ways for us to augment our internal security team is to work with the white hat community. This was a pain before Hacker One but now is significantly easier.
One challenge is that Shopify (still) hasn't really got the profile in the tech industry that a lot of Silicon Valley local companies have. This is totally fine by me, but it's means that if a top white hat sits down and decide what to work on, we are not automatically top of mind.
So we decided to overspent as a kind of "marketing" investment. Hacker one is a classical two sided market place. There is plenty of supply of skilled researchers but also a lot of demand for their services. We want to be known for being one of the most responsive companies and also pay top dollars for top findings.
So the basic idea is that when we launch something new, we 10x the payouts to bootstrap the process of familiarization. We also provide a very convenient local environment for doing the work in. It should be more fun and more lucrative to make Shopify related discoveries then other companies. After this initial period we then reduce the payouts somewhere slightly above community standards. Its all just business 101.
Internally we are actually thrilled how the shopify-scripts/mruby program went. Most (all?) of what was found would have been caught by our sandboxing but we don't want to rely on this. As everyone who does security knows - lots of exploits, even if superficially contained, can sometimes combine into "the big one".
I don't quite follow this logic. If bugs are now going to be more difficult to find, one would think they would be more valuable, not less.. and that by lowering the bounties they are lowering the incentive for people to search for them.
I like that Shopify isn't your typical Silicon Valley tech company. But coming from a background as a tech and security consultant for Fortune 500 companies, Shopify does feel like I'm back in the tech little leagues sometimes.
And this is an unfair image association problem Shopify has. Their tech is quite amazing and a lot of very brilliant people work there.
Its great to see Xal, the CEO of a publicly traded company with a close to $4bn market cap, this active on HN. Ive always considered him one of the most brilliant engineers of our generation ever since the Active Merchant days. To me these programs and the way they are being shared on HN really help bringing his company the credit it deserves.
A lot of PoC are very simple:
a = Decimal.new a.initialize a
A ||= break while break
a = Symbol.new a.inspect
This is probably wise; the track record of in-language sandboxing is pretty bad (see also: Java applets.)
If anyone wants to test this theory - setup 2 FB accounts, message an image one FB account to the other. Click on the image with the second account (to bring up the lightbox custom thingy they have). Drag that image into notepad (to get the URL)... then try and logout of both accounts, clear your cache, and you'll see the image is COMPLETELY public -> meaning no authentication is required.
They refused to acknowledge this as a "security risk". I laughed, then was really pissed that a PRIVATE image shared between two parties can be viewed w/o authentication above it.
Kinda ironic that a site that is supposedly for hackers wants you to expose yourself to zillion browser vulnerabilities before you can see its content.
Giving your users a ruby interpreter inside your infrastructure is a terrible idea. They're just one unreported bug away from disaster!
One could think of a few alternatives, all of them involving decoupling Shopify's servers from users' scripts.
It could be anything from Docker/k8s to AWS lambda to a custom DSL. I'm not saying any option is easy - proper solutions tend to require effort.
Commuters just want to get to work reliably and they'd like a seat. And they'd like to have a minimum of screening so that they don't have to deal with people with severe mental issues on the way to work.
In Toronto they've gone as far as launching a crowdfunded bus route, which the city had an icy response too. It had to shut down because of legal uncertainties.
So I think the big problem with transit is that people in city gov refuse to recognise that commuters desires are perfectly reasonable. If the city won't provide them options then they should at least make sure there aren't legal issues with private providers.
As a transportation / transit planner, there are an awful lot of suburban transit routes that are simply there due to politics instead of actual use. An example is one route I had done a bunch of work on that essentially showed the existing 5 riders a day would be better served at a cheaper rate by municipally subsidized taxis than by a gas guzzling, inflexible, union driven, public transit bus. The financials made sense, the data made sense to support a change. It was about to get changed until a politician came in and essentially canned everything because he didn't want his ward to not have a transit route because he would look bad.
I firmly believe these gaps can and should be filled by alternative modes of transport, and I wouldn't necessarily look at this as a bad thing. Transport is a wildly flexible area that is constantly evolving .
As for the costs going up for Uber, I don't really think those concerns are founded in anything other than speculation. His same logic about economies of scale would surely translate into it filling in that cost gap between providing the service and being revenue profitable. The truth is that every dollar invested in transit in the suburbs is nowhere near the same as every dollar invested in transit in urban areas. This article, I don't believe, made a real case for showing that the cost of providing transit would be cheaper, even in a future scenario, than having Ride hailing services filling in the gaps. The advantage of allowing Uber / taxis to fill first / last mile trips is that operating the line scales relatively well for scenarios where this type of service makes sense. There's a breakpoint where this cost of operation justifies switching over to providing a transit solution. But this allows agencies to build up demand before investing the capital and assuming some of the other maintenance costs such as bus stops, scheduling time, etc
Public transit in many cities creates hot-spots in the real estate market that isn't good public policy either.
Of course, the article is right that people shifting into less dense transit will have bad environmental and congestion problems.
But I don't think that traditional public transit will be the way of the future. Rather, I think that self-driving, reasonably high-density vehicles will be the future. Imagine a nice bus that seats 15-20 picking people up along an ad-hoc route in the morning determined as riders hail the bus and are instructed to an ad-hoc stop within a block and dropping them off within a block of their destination. That's a lot more convenient than most public transit systems where you have to travel to stops, maybe change lines, not getting exactly where you want to go, etc. It could also cut down on vehicle miles travelled by creating optimized routes.
If Uber Pool can do what bus service can do for barely more money, a self-driving bus will be way better than a standard public transit experience and as efficient or more efficient environmentally.
In fact, I think the self-driving future in cities will be determined by good incentives. During peak periods, charge for congestion. Not broad-based attacks on vehicles, but an incentive for people to commute in higher-density vehicles where the charge can be spread among more people. It would be easy for a city to incentive Uber, Lyft, and others to offer higher-density options for commuters via congestion charging. Likewise, environmental incentives could be offered to push customers and companies toward more economical vehicles and routes. I think it's reasonable to assume that in a self-driving future, companies like Lyft and Uber would want a lot of economical vehicles like Priuses getting 50MPG in the city. For higher-density vehicles, 10% fuel savings could push margins up a couple points - especially if environmental fuel taxes are put on top of the price of fuel. Similarly, better routing can lead to fewer miles travelled leading to savings.
For those that want the privacy of single-person travel, they can be charged an appropriate amount to compensate society.
Uber can't do a lot of high-density vehicles currently because it relies on vehicles owned by random people. But when self-driving vehicles truly become mainstream, there's no reason Uber wouldn't want to expand into company-owned, higher-density vehicles. They could run these at a fraction of the cost that most public transit systems are running at. In lower density areas, maybe medium-density vehicles and in even lower density areas, single-person rides in small vehicles may remain common. When Uber can control its vehicle stock with self-driving vehicles, there's a lot of options for them to optimize in ways that will boost their profits while also helping the environment and congestion.
Maybe you think Uber isn't interested in a low-rent, non-premium service. That may be, but so many are interested in transit and it would be reasonably easy for a competitor to put together such a service and undercut Uber on price for so many riders. Uber would want to respond.
Ultimately, the article talks about bus routes doing 10 boardings per hour and how that's more than an Uber will do. That's probably true, but an Uber-bus would likely do more boardings due to better ad-hoc routes and more convenience. In my city, fares only cover a quarter of bus operating costs (never mind capital costs) and two-thirds of subway costs. Part of the problem is that a lot of transit systems work off the principle that they need to serve off-peak and lower utility uses in order to hit that critical mass that would make them a good choice for users. Ad-hoc, self-driving routes could relieve transit systems of their bigger loss-leaders using vehicles optimized for those areas. Similarly, off-peak service that often sees low ridership and loses money could be off-loaded. This is also an environmental win - subways are environmentally friendly when there's a lot of riders, not when they're mostly empty. A bus route that's losing over $10 per rider is bad for a public transit system and also bad for the environment since the bus probably doesn't have enough people on it to make it fuel efficient on a per-passenger basis.
I think there's a genuine opportunity to do a lot better than current public transit with self-driving vehicles. Something that's a lot more environmentally friendly and a lot more convenient.
Cities should give companies tax incentives to keep employees at home. Just stay off the road. Live in a part of town where you can walk to get your groceries and snacks. Incentivize mixed use developments instead of suburbia hell.
Having worked from home the past year I can't understand how people put up with cubicles. While I make more now, I'd be willing to take a big pay cut to keep my sanity.
The first said, "I charged less than the market, and found guilty of dumping."
The second says, "I charged more than the market and was accused of gouging."
The last responded, "I charged the same as everyone else, and was accused of price fixing!"
The idea that Uber might be competing with bus or rail seems very surprising and indicates that something must be seriously, seriously screwed with the mass transit infrastructure in that city.
Anyone hoping Uber is going to run out of VC money and lose favor after being forced to raise prices in cities where it is already popular is going to be sorely disappointed. Uber is profitable in those cities. The more plausible failure scenario is that it doesn't succeed in new markets and therefore ends up being worth less than its current valuation.
Maybe its time to quit discussing public transit officials and bureaucracies as though they were improving the world in a permanent way, and as though they will necessarily make cities better for everyone. We already know thats hasn't been true.
Who exactly are the people telling this writer that Uber will make transit obsolete? I live in a city where public transportation is very popular and have not once, ever heard this.
The reality is public transit use is surging in popularity. Public ridership is up 39% since 1995 (you know, when most people did not have internet or smartphones). Young people flock to cities with good public transit. And while I've never once heard someone say "Uber will make public transit obsolete", I have heard many people say they chose a city because it had good public transit.
I am just curious about others' thoughts about the big picture. Are cities doomed to privatized transportation and further inequality creation?
The 2nd avenue subway is going to take tens of billions of dollars and several decades to complete. Why shouldn't the possibility of self-driving cars be taken into account when making these sorts of billion-dollar multi-decade planning decisions?
> But much of the confusion arises because people sincerely dont understand how narrow the range of opportunities is for ride-sourcing to improve on fixed route transits efficiency.
As if I cared about improving abstract "efficiency". I care about being able to get a ride within 5 minutes at any point in the city. Whether or not that improves some abstract metric invented for completely other reasons carries no importance to me.
> We know Uber is unprofitable, which means its prices are unsustainable.
No it actually doesn't mean that. Profitability has other dimensions than consumer prices, such as investments, capital costs, etc.
> Ubers behavior often looks like an intentional effort to undermine competitors and thus reduce customer choice
I haven't seen any behavior aimed to reduce customer choice. The only people trying to reduce the customer choice are those inventing reasons to ban Uber (and similar service), often at explicit prompting and for direct benefit of incumbent stakeholders.
> no doubting the value of these companies in the lives of fortunate people who can afford to use their services routinely
Oh, those fatcats that can afford to shell out whole $9 for a ride! Who cares about those, they probably each own a park of helicopters anyway.
> and many welcome regulation precisely to plug that gap.
Which regulation, to do what? No mention of it. Why bother? Of course regulation is good and no regulation is bad. Terrible article, full of FUD and calls to "do something", without bothering to outline what and for what purpose.
I'm fascinated by the various company buses in the Bay Area. If you look at the passengers they carry they take a significant number of cars off the road. And even though they are economically inefficient (every company has their own set of fixed costs) there is no effort to create a public/private partnership that would meet the needs of companies and urban planners with less cost.
Current HN headline: "Uber's predatory pricing is undermining public transit and density"
The article barely mentions predatory pricing.
It also pins much on whether or not Uber is profitable, citing conflicting reports. But at 30% take rates it's pretty easy to see that it would be quite profitable on a gross margin basis.
Uber is subsidized by private investors, public transport is subsidized by everyone -- whether they want, need or use it or not.
While it will bring many ills (e.g. increased obesity due to cheap door to door transit, more spread out cities), let's not delude ourselves with this article's misguided rhetoric -- mass transit will be more affordable and accessible than ever in history to the masses.
This article aims to treat the car sharing as ceteris paribus (all else equal) when in the current state of exponential change, it is anything but.
Because I think it put in plain sight that no, most people do not want that. I for one do not want to ride next to people who can physically harm me. I would love a "club" model for public transportation where members who don't play nice could be excluded from this club, and which would only use members money instead of subsidies.
TLDR: do what you want with your money, I'll do what I want with mine. We will belong to different clubs providing different public transportation. Just don't force me to join your club by forbidding mine.
(edit: downvote is not for indicating disapproval in case I hurt your feelz. If you believe I am wrong, please explain how and why)
while i understand your point, it's not really fair. you can have potentially unsafe run-ins with the mentally sane just as easily. you can also have potentially unsafe run-ins with the mentally ill while in a Lyft or Uber.
You are trying to say thay you want a quiet, peaceful, possibly even restful commute because you want to be focused at work. But that's not what you are actually typing.
For anybody who missed this, Project Quantum is a Mozilla project to dramatically improve Gecko. Part of this project is to bring in Servo components like CSS and WebRender, hence the Rust dependency.
More awesome info:
Especially with browsers, which not everyone agrees on how they should be and desires to customise, only to find that the option to do so has been removed or a source change must be performed, is subsequently delighted to know that it's open-source so they should be able to do it easily, but then get overwhelmed and give up after they realise the effort needed just to build an unmodified version of the software themselves. They then fall back to merely complaining on the Internet, and reluctantly accepting their "fate"... somehow, I feel like some of the visions of open-source didn't quite turn out as well as hoped.