Any comment regarding Jason Calacanis being banned from YC's upcoming demo day? Jason tweeted his side but didn't know what the YC side of it was and was curious.
I think the next billion $ enterprise startup will be more likely to come from such a batch. People who face enterprise software problems are not always in a stage in life that allows them to move to SF for a few months. YC might be missing out a large cohort of founders who work in enterprise software, outside of the Bay Area, and would disrupt their industry given the chance but are less flexible in moving to SF.
There are many "old tech" hubs outside SF that can generate great new startups. medical IT, medical devices, mechanical and aviation industry, enterprise software etc. Are Enterprise software ideas and founders with years of enterprise software experience adequately represented at YC?
What are some actions people like myself can take to push our community, nation, and world towards Basic Income?
This is particularly important to me because of how fast Uber/Tesla are rushing towards fully autonomous vehicles. Over 4 million jobs in US alone are as drivers. They're all gonna be laid off soon.
Would you consider doing something similar for YC? Obviously, you already have multiple people looking at websites/applications, but I'd be really curious to see what the agreement is like - and you have some absolutely exception AI/data scientists people at openAI who could crunch all the numbers.
Being in the Bay Area, I know that Stanford and UC Berkeley tend to have a decent amount of relatively successful launches/founders, but on the other hand I can't say I hear nearly as much about people who went to San Francisco State or San Jose State (or any other lower-tier schools that are not just located in SF Bay Area).
If there is a large enough discrepancy, do you have any ideas of ways to jumpstart or spark other educational communities to have a greater focus on trying out ideas, especially with YC (or other programs)?
Personally, I'm finishing studying at San Jose State and while there is an Entrepreneurship Club, the focus for that side of things (at least from what I've seen) tends to stay purely on the Business college end, rather than other potential high-impact areas (aside from the occasional mobile app here and there).
1. I'm a little in the dark about what happens to applications that have already been seen (because they were submitted early) that are then edited pre-deadline. I've been putting off submission because I'm very close to having an MVP demo video, which I think would be strongly to my advantage to include, but I also know that early submissions face a strong advantage as well. Do you have any advice on the balance between the two, specific to the YC application process? Would it make sense to submit now and edit in the demo later?
2. Are you aware of any publicly available resources for founders to do their due-diligence on investors? I've met a couple of investors by chance (at bars, amusingly enough) that, after hanging out for a few hours, I knew would be a bad fit -- but it would be a waste of both the investors' time and my time if we didn't learn that until the first face-to-face meeting. Do you have any advice on how to maximize search utility (for both an investor and my company) when I'm building my list of potential investors?
We here in Finland have been slowly developing a startup ecosystem.
The effort started 5-years ago and now finally, thanks to the amazing bunch of volunteers, we have stuff like Slush and Startup Saunato show for it.
What would be your advice in rocketing the finnish startup ecosystem to the next level?
P.S. You should visit us sometime, we'd love to host you at Startup Sauna!
In http://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-2 you laid out sensible requirements and safeguards we should demand of late-stage AI development when it gets further along. But OpenAI's founding statement seems to have baked in a mission and vision that's incompatible with those safeguards, requiring immediate sharing of breakthroughs even if the technologies required to use them safely aren't ready yet. That founding statement used to have the word "safely" in it, but this was edited out without any sort of announcement or comment, and, to the best of my thirdhand-rumor knowledge, OpenAI is not currently doing any safety-related research.
(I wrote a blog post on this back in December, and no one has given any plausible answer: http://conceptspacecartography.com/openai-should-hold-off-on... )
Chris Dixon made an interesting post about how some AI ideas are better suited for bigger companies because of the data and compute needs.
What are your thoughts on what classes of AI problems are better for startups vs. big companies?
I have a very clear vision of what we want to accomplish, but we're selling a much more down to earth service to our customers and prospects. I do think there's a path leading us to our vision (think Netflix going from CDs to streaming). Should we describe our vision in the application?
Is http://yclist.com/ a valid source of data? If so, it seems like YC could be at the cusp of a large amount of DEAD companies starting from S10 to current.
Could such a thing prevent more breakups and therefore greatly increase chances of company success? And the cost is pretty small for YC to employ relationship counsellors.
I am an international founder. I want to join YC and incorporate in the US. But to avoid wasting time on visa things, I want to return to my home country (India) after YC.
1) Should I mention this in my application? 2) From YC's point of view, do you prefer international founders who want to stay on in the US or those who want to go back to their home country? Assuming they would kill it either way.
(PS - My startup is COMMENT.ws whereas YTERMINATOR.com, UNICOCK.com are light hearted hacks to get YC's attention)
What's your take on the best way to make the network useful on day one for a small number of users? What are you looking for in a YC app for a social network (with or without traction)?
As a company with no revenue / users, How can we best stand out against those that do have growth / users?
I understand that companies can apply for the fellowship. But what does a company lose by getting into the Fellowship over Core?
Does YC have any interest at all in startups (if you can call them that) whose main product is a video game of some sort?
Are you excited about any specific ideas for the S16 batch? If so - what and why? (genuinely curious. Already applied... so I can't go and change the idea now :) )
(As per my usual disclaimer: I'm not being facetious.)
Assuming that the applicants are able to demonstrate:
- they can build stuff
- they're a good team fit (e.g. showing a small project from the past)
- they can generate ideas which they're passionate about
If not: do you have a tip for improving these nearly graduated* university applicants?
* 80 hours of course work left
(I know YC's policy on incubating startups which have already been through other incubators, which I believe if I recall correctly is a very data-driven "no." My question comes more from the standpoint of whether any YC benefits might be available to startups which already have some success but are still very much in the early stages)
Does YC do match making (if they see a good fit) or this something you need to specifically request on the application?
What do you recommend to get great at building products? Any recommendations for college students? Engineering courses don't seem to do justice.
(21, in college)
What do you recommend for someone who isn't a friend with a good developer ?Is it better to subcontract the development of the site/app to a good software development company ?
How do you decide between putting a company in the fellowship vs YC core?
Do you think non-venture backed companies can change the world?
Does YC want to help founders who do not want funding?
What do you think about Social Media Apps that do not use traditional "follow my profile" as a way to share photos, videos and texts?
Do you believe that dividing the profit received from the ads, a model similar to YouTube -unlike Instagram, Facebook and Twitter where the company takes all; can be used to attract content creators in direct competition with these tools already established in the market ?
This could be considered a Disruptive Innovation?
>So, if youre thinking about starting one, wed like to talk. And we think we can help
What's the preferred method of contact? I have connections to a "hard tech" startup in Austin and pointed the founders at your blog post.
I feel like I'm a bit between in that I have a product but haven't closed my first customer but hoping to real soon.
YC companies seem to have a similar "look and feel" about them. Do you agree with that? Do you think this is a good or bad thing?
1). When do you wake up?
2). When do you go to bed?
What do you hate the most when working with such entities?
is YC helping non-tech startups such as clothing industry?
I know this is an exaggeration, and I'm fully aware the current visa situation in the US could be better, but I really take issue with the sentiment of your statement.
You're being afforded an enormous opportunity here, and should not compare it with being in a prison.
Think about it -- you clearly decided your home country was not as conducive for building your future as the US may be, and therefore applied for (and accepted) a visa. Now it's up to you to prove value in allowing you to remain in the country. A visa is a privilege, not a right.
Literally billions of folks around the world are never given this opportunity.
- Jack went to trial as a teenager, facing 60 years (!) in prison for chemistry experiments (http://www.masslive.com/localbuzz/index.ssf/2009/06/actionre...)
- John showcasing a guitar that Jack's mother and Jack built for KISS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXZi4UZjiiI&t=10)
- John's brother is Augusten Burroughs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusten_Burroughs)
I pointed Jack to this thread. I believe he went through same treatment as John at one point if people have questions.
When I was younger, I was awful at reading people. Very shy with others as a result, because I was missing most of the data.
I eventually decided to learn how to read body language. I did some training to recognize expressions, focussed on one skill at a time, and viewed every conversation as practice. I improved to the point that people comment that I'm surprisingly good at reading them.
But the emotions don't hit me the way this author describes. I just....see them.
Granted, I've also practice stoicisim and mindfulness, which explicitly trains you to not worry about things like someone insulting you (or hearing a comment that might be construed as insulting).
But, I've wondered if something is going on. When I was younger, before learning to read people, I read descriptions of Aspergers and it sounded much like me. Now when I read them it sounds not very much like me, because a significant component of those symptom descriptions involve poor social skills.
If you thought of a real steeple you had actually seen then you probably tend towards autism. If you thought of an abstract non-existing steeple then you don't tend towards it.
I was at a gathering of employees in my company. There were about a dozen random people sitting around a table. I tested the whole group at once. Every single programmer answered with a real steeple and every non-programmer thought abstract.
I know this doesn't represent a real study and chance was involved. But it matches something else she said. Functional autistics with jobs are predominantly programmers. She quoted a number, like 70%, but I don't remember for sure.
I, a programmer, personally prefer human interaction on the web. Meeting in real-life, not so much.
Some research opposes the deficits of autism to the excesses of schizophrenia. Not sure it's totally relevant to this item, but seeing emotional meanings where they don't exist is a very schizotypal (positive schizotypy) phenomenon:
Whenever you make a large change in yourself, you are going to alienate people in your life. This doesn't say anything about whether the change is good or bad.
The set of people currently in your life is highly biased towards people who like you the way you are. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in your life.
The more interesting question is after you make a change and get a new set of people, how do those people compare to your old set?
It's relatively easy to imagine seeing the world in black and white and then having the colour switch flipped. I can't imagine the same for emotion... what a wild ride it must have been. It must have been so painful at first, especially when he realized that some of his "funny friends" had really been making fun of him...
I probably didn't notice other people's emotions a lot when I was younger, to the effect that now that I'm older, and do notice them, I frequently don't have any idea what to do with that understanding.
I was diagnosed when I was 17, and I get to interact with a lot of other students on the spectrum every day at my school. There are a few students that believe autism is something to overcome, and that if they try hard enough perhaps one day they won't be 'autistic'. Most of us are comfortable with the fact that we're different.
This effectively putting a current the the subject's brain and can be dangerous if not administered by a doctor
I talked about my suspected Asperger syndrome with the psychiatrist, and she said "I could medicate you for that, but are you really sure you want to change?".
The thing that scares me most /Is the fear I see in others /And the thing that really frightens me to the core /is when I see that fear in you
I wondered how that would go, we all go through years of social interaction and have to build walls. Nowadays, I don't know if my walls have become too thick or if I never had the same emotional range as others in the first place.
What? There was no follow up on this. Why would anyone say that - how does this even make sense at a basic level? Was there no follow up question by him?
Situations can be turned upside down when trying to think from the perspective of a person with stronger emotional responses.
I've found that the emotions we read out of people are often exaggerated from their true thoughts. It's easy to feel like there's some harsh judgment occurring when, in fact, there isn't. Someone should've told the author this, and not to take his new "emotional superpower" too seriously.
This smacks of the client not knowing how to use a developer. Meaning: I can imagine they made a simple (probably incomplete) scope or product definition document, didn't realize where the complexity actually lay, found someone cheap, and then realized that no one had the ability to actually shepherd the project to completion. They knew nothing about their developer -- and she or he knew nothing about them. And they weren't paying that much, really. So it wasn't a huge priority in the developer's life. And maybe the dev was young or just kind of between things and something more important came up or whatever. It actually takes some thoughtfulness to be a professional freelancer. Can be harder sometimes than it looks.
Cheap overseas developer talent is fine. But. There's also a huge value to finding people who you can sit down with and talk to. Meet. Get to know a bit. Professional freelancers will absolutely help naive clients identify and avoid pitfalls from the start. We (professional freelancers) have already fallen into them all and generally have the scars and callouses to know what it really takes to produce good software in a freelance environment. Professionals know how much time and effort it actually takes to do things. They'll tell you if your "I need a Facebook clone next week" project has any chance of success. They'll help you with design and they'll help you understand the trade-offs between money, time, and functionality that all software projects must make.
Sounds like none of that happened here.
Anyway. This just touched a nerve for me. Maybe I'm totally off base.
Now there are free services like Gamocosm which shut down your digitalocean server when not using it, so that it might only cost $1 or so a month: https://gamocosm.com/Meaning it would take 8 years before it cost as much as a Mineserver box.
Minecraft is not open source by OSI's definition and doesn't even have the source code available. The Minecraft server is distributed as a compiled JAR file. What does the author talk about?
"Its the final bug, . . ."
Uhhhh.....seems optimistic at best especially considering their experience so far.
To have the realizations the struggles and successes of such a project, and have that under their belt before they graduate high school is a wonderful achievement.
What a great project!!
"Minecraft, which is written in Java, is nominally Open Source, but there are some peculiar restrictions on distributing the code."
what's amazing is how few journalists actually have gone through this process, and how even fewer write about it.
the fact that he wrote a huge blog post about it means he's somehow surprised it's this hard to do actual work on products and services.
My guess is that they decided to release the demo earlier instead of spending days/weeks getting up to speed with low-latency audio processing in the Android JNI.
It's an academic demo/press release. Not a software release for production/market.
It's a neat idea, but without a dedicated component or an extremely high-speed RTOS, you're not going to come close to the level accuracy that's really needed to do the math and still allow interaction.
I don't mean to rain on the parade, but I just don't think they really have anything usable.
Reminds me of SOLI (which is radar rather than sonar): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QNiZfSsPc0
Is there a way of trying this out? I know it'd only be demo line drawing applications but it'd still be interesting to try.
It's a really cool concept. I wish they'd open source what they have, or at least have plans to open source it. However if this came about via University funding, they'll probably claim IP on it. If it was a student's own fellowship, he/she/they might decide to create a start-up out of it.
I have the feeling, every few years someone has the idea again, to use ultrasound for something and it starts promising, but then the accuracy and lag doesn't go away and dogs and cats go wild.
if people really want this type of interaction then phones will start to incorporate specialized hardware for it.
Leap Motion made huge improvements a few weeks ago with their Orion SDK:
We must be close to actually getting something basic for our desktops.
First things first. You should understand the objectives of the organization youre trying to join. There are three primary objectives of the UN system today. The first one is to pay the salaries and the perks of its employees. The second is to give them a microcosm in which they can walk around in suits, look important, use buzzwords, and basically find some, however contrived, meaning. The third one is to make it seem like there is an international political system out there, a framework of rules that everyone respects. This last one is increasingly optional in the post-Cold War geopolitical climate.
Your globetrotting, world-saving dream job doesnt exist. It hasnt existed for a while. The world has been explored it no longer needs explorers, and especially doesnt need faceless bureaucrats. It needs people who do things. Even if, through blackmail, magic rituals or blind luck, you land a UN job somehow, you will not be part of the world elite far, far from it. You will push paper watching your years go by; your sole obsession will be sucking up to your neurotic supervisor in the hope of seeing your grade increase by a small notch five years down the road; you will wake up at 55 wondering where your professional life has gone. And thats even discounting the remote possibility that the funding countries come along and say Ok guys, the shows been great, now pack it up and go home, youre not needed anymore.
Now imagine a bureaucracy run by and accountable to all the national government bureaucracies in the world! And remember that the ones most HN readers live under are, despite our whining, the most efficient and least corrupt in the world - the others are often far worse.
That's the UN. If you are going to have an association of the world's governments, I think that's the way it's going to be.
Like democracy, it's horrible but better than all the alternatives. It's primary purpose, IIRC, is to prevent international war (i.e., wars between nations, as opposed to civil wars). After all the war of human history, after WWI and WWII occurring within a 31 year period (think of that: that's like 1985 until today!), international war has almost been put to an end. It's now a major exception when it happens, and that fact is really a miracle.
They also achieve many other very important things, though expensively and slowly.
Remember that the UN is no fuzzy-minded idealist's fantasy. It was built by the survivors of WWII and WWI, while the ashes were still smoldering. Those people knew far more of war and the realities of man's inhumanity than we can imagine.
It breaks its own rules by refusing entry to a country with a vibrant democracy and a roughly comparable population and GDP as AustraliaTaiwan. Why? Because China has a veto. Consequently, not only will the UN continue breaking its own guidelines and refusing Taiwan entry but it will also never condemn China's repeated threats of invasion.
Similar dynamics play out interests concerning other veto wielding countries such as the US or Russia.
* Stand up for the sovereignty of the world's nations.
* Defend human rights throughout the world.
These missions are in direct conflict. It's impossible to force states to play nice with human rights, while at the same time respect the sovereignty of these states.
What we're left with is just like the conflict in 2001's HAL-9000. Given two conflicting goals, bad things happen. Neither objective is fulfilled, and the system fails in all kinds of other ways too.
I hope that more organization like Watsi  or ONE  emerge and take donations away from more traditional and established non-profits, but I won't be holding my breath for it.
At the end of the day, the private sector probably yields more positive impact.
Sexual abuse by it's peacekeepers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/world/2016/02/27/peacekeepe...). "Child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers" even has its own wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse_by_UN_peace...)
Bribes are abound, even a story earlier today (http://www.seattletimes.com/business/humanitarian-worker-cha..., http://nypost.com/2015/10/06/former-general-assembly-preside...).
Saudi Arabia is on the human rights council (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/22/why-is-saud...). Not exactly a "scandal" but in the same vein.
It's ever-increasingly hard to take the organization seriously.
God, the horror stories - even if they're only partially true, there's no reason whatsoever for the United States (or any other country) to be funding such a broken organization.
One of the reasons the UN was created or transformed out of the league of nations was to prevent world war by providing an avenue of negotiation. By its founding purpose I think it has not done too badly.
There's a moral duty the UN seems to have, but this is an extra purpose to the UN. There are organisations that don't need the echo chambers of other nations that can do the same things, such as doctors without borders.
I am sure that most of the personnel policies that the author alludes to are well-meaning and intuitive. What is out of scope in such rule-making is the empirical outcome. The cost of delay (213 days to hire) is apparently not a factor in the rules.
They lose a lot of good people in a presumed attempt to ensure they hire good people. Such an outcome is only recognized a posteriori.
I write about salary negotiation and coach people through it, and I think sharing salaries publicly will encourage more people to negotiate and get paid what they're worth.
I recently coached a new Amazon employee, and he got a very good offer, which he increased by about 15% using VERY simple negotiation tactics that we discussed. If he hadn't negotiated, he would've still been paid well, but would have left 15% on the table before he was even in the door.
I submitted this link yesterdayit's a Salary Negotiation workshop I did for developers in Orlando last week. It's definitely relevant to this conversation:
EDIT: Here's a direct link to the Salary Negotiation workshop summary to save you a click: http://bit.ly/21zFG5q
Here's the HN submission for posterity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11305683
(Not sure why I originally linked to an HN submission linking to the workshop. \_()_/)
Nice job starting this thread!
* Accept a job somewhere* Get promoted (doesn't matter how)* let yourself get hired away from your current company
Getting hired away from your current company is the only way to get a fair raise. Companies never give substantial raises to current employees.
I have to praise Google for the way the situation was handled: the company didn't force the spreadsheet to be taken down (in fact, it's still up as I write this), nobody that I know of was fired for it and it generated a healthy amount of internal discussion. After hearing some stories from the Amazon counter part, I wouldn't expect the reaction to be the same.
1 - Full-time freelance audiobook editor.
2 - Post-Production Associate - Level 6/4
35 shares of AMZN per year for three years
3 - ACX Production Coordinator - Level 7/5
Additional 20 shares of AMZN per year for three years
I am no longer ashamed to write these figures out to the public because I now make more than twice the salary that I was making before I left the company. I found that my salary at Amazon was always far too low given what I did, and my job titles were not at all representative of the job I actually did (for the 2nd and 3rd jobs they were almost entirely software engineering jobs.)
NOTE: Audible and Amazon have different job levels - Audible's job levels are two points higher than the same Amazon job level.
When I was hired I had to tell them "No" and hang up the phone (in the middle of the 2001 recession) to a $63k job offer. They called back the next day and bumped the offer to $70k. I later learned that I had one of the only "strong hires" ever given out by the bar raiser and the HR rep was told to hire me at all costs. HR played (and probably still plays) insanely hard hardball in negotiating salary.
Other SEIIIs hired at around the same time came on at $60-63k and were stuck there. Once the economy recovered in 2003/2004-ish we eventually started hiring SEIIIs at >$120k starting salary.
Gender: M Native English Speaker: Yes for myself and the other two or three employees I'm thinking of.
(I saw us make offers as high as 200k for fresh ph.d.'s)
I chose to not take the offer but went to join a different company.
I just want to say that if you're quitting for reasons other than compensation, then don't ever listen to competing offers from your current team/company. That way you save yourself a ton of regret if your new job doesn't go well. #lesson-learnt-for-me
It is so much better than Glassdoor at dissecting salary data.
20+ years experience. Working remote from southeast U.S.A.
Tenure so far: 2.5 years
Stock: purportedly .75% of company 4 years 1-year cliff, with small follow-on grant later, don't know what recent dilution is, though I think more recent funding has been "debt" at low interest with preference
Not a regular VC situation, company funded through other means.
Outlook -- real uncertain, market has definite need, execution so far has been very mixed, company willing to re-do things the right way
* Area: Seattle, WA
* Position: SDE
* Base Pay: $90k
* Signing Bonus: $20k immediately, then $17k paid in 12 monthly installments after you reach 1yr in employment.
* Stock Units: $53k (5% at 1yr mark, 15% at 2yr mark, then 20% every 6 months from then on) Note: this vesting schedule is AWFUL.
Needless to say, I rejected this offer and did not work for them. Best decision I ever made.
Title : Software Development Engineer (SDE I)
Base : 98,000
Sign on : 50,000 (2 year period)
Relocation : 10,000 (2 year)
Stocks : worth $70,000 (4 years)
I was a systems engineer in Dublin and the only significant payraise I got was after I left the company for 4 months to then rejoin, my salary was bumped up 12k euros, for a total of 62k/yr, with 150 shares over 4 years (sorry I do not remember the vesting scheme).
The HR department in AMZN has the tendency to screw internal employees upon promotion.The way it was unofficially explained to me by a low-level buddy in HR is that there are salary ranges for each corporate level, and during a promotion you get just over the lower bound of the salary range for your new corp level, that's the policy, that's what happens.
New hires instead have negotiation margin and, while the hiring manager can't offer a salary higher than the approved salary range, more often than not the offer will end up in the upper bound of the range, to lure the candidate in.
Furthermore, there are huge differences between salary ranges in job roles, a Systems Engineer will always be paid 15 to 30% less than a Software Development Engineer at the same level, despite the fact that the skills and duties are not that much different, why? Again unofficially "because Amazon values more people that write software". Except the fact that in my ex-team, we all wrote software and the expectations were all the same regardless the job title (there was however a difference between levels).
So yeah, as internal promotion you have absolutely NO leverage regarding salary, if you want a salary increase and your organization is hungry for people but is having trouble in hiring (like it happens frequently in Dublin where the job market is quite competitive), I'd suggest you start looking around for a new job, accept the offer and then come back to your same team 4 months later. If you leave the company for less than 6 months and your position hasn't been filled in the meantime, the hiring manager is able to extend an offer without sending you through an interview loop, you'll get your old job back but with a nice pile of money on top.
Passes the virtual whiskey
On the other hand, my work is not that stressful, and I'm still going to school so my job is very flexible on time.
Anyone else been in a position like me?
My base pay was right around $100k. I had a $20k signing bonus the first year, and something effectively similar for the second year (though less cash and some stock was thrown in).
Position: Senior Software Engineer (level 5)
Tenure: 4 years, no prior experience
Comp: $300K (160 salary, 40 bonus, 100 stock)
Male, native English speaker
P.S. We're hiring.
Position: Developer (not classified as SDE, do not manage ppl)
Tenure: 2 years
Job Level: 5
Base Pay: $73,000
Signing Bonus: $25k Year 1, $21k Year 2
2016 Stock Vest: 104 shares
LY Review Score: Exceeds
LY Pay Increase: 4%, plus 35 shares of AMZN
Most Recent Promotion Increase/Stock Grant: N/A - no promotions
Native English Speaker: Yes
Holy shit, I am under paid.
It'd be nice if people mentioned how many hours/week they work for me to get a good idea of what to expect. Especially since we're talking about Amazon.
(1) Support Engineer* Base: $72,000; increased at 1yr to $74,000* Bonus: $20,000; half in first check, other half over months 13-24* Stock: I don't remember
(2) Software Development Engineer* Base: $82,000
Gender: MNative English: YesI honestly don't recall if I was L4 or L5 or both.
Both of these were in Seattle. I do know for a fact that there were/are others who were hired and paid more than me.
This appears to be one of many variables HR uses for salary negotiations and I recognize that. I don't see why this necessarily matters for most work places. Shouldn't you just pay for what the candidate brings to the table (skills, experience, etc.) and not consider what, even someone with a similar background is currently making in the company. I suppose salary negotiations/the labor market isn't an efficient market where a price can be assigned given x, y, & z.
In my fourth year my total compensation was estimated to be around 120k.
It's worth looking at the H1B data. I've got some limited anecdotal data, but the H1B data appears to clearly delineate the same salary ranges Amazon gives to US Citizens. (Maybe they will pay citizens 10% more, but the ranges actually look pretty similar to what I've heard.)
(I am a US Citizen, English speaker, in Seattle.)
Main moral of the story if you choose to stay at Amazon: don't worry about your level, focus on your job role. You can probably keep doing the work you're doing and become an SDE if you talk to your manager and frame the conversation right.
Note: as of right now, GlassDoor is down for "Scheduled Maintenance" but the question stands.
Sr Software Eng at LinkedIn in CA.
$25,000 Hiring Bonus
$300,000 Stock (25% 1st year, then quarterly for the remaining 75% over 3 years) ($300,000 at the time, now it's only about half that).
10% annual bonus.
Male. Native English Speaker.
I can also speak to a friend here all the stats are the same except he got a $35,000 moving stipend instead of a hiring bonus.
Tenure: 4 years
Base Pay: $143,000
2016 Stock Vest: about 140 shares
Review Score: Exceeds
Salary: $100kBonus: $25kStock: I forget but it was not much
I think for lasting that long, Amazon really pays off in equity compensation which they dole out willingly (with 4 year cliffs of course).
I made 90k as an SDE I straight of college. 20k sign on bonus. Second year bonus of 15k. 150 shares of stock with the regular 5%, 15%, 20% cliffs. Biggest raise I got was 4k when I received an exceeds.
Source: I was hired at Amazon as an SDE1 in 2004 at a base salary of $85,000.
Joined: Last year
Base Pay: 145,000
Tell you what, with a Bachelor's in Chemistry (in my year 176 people started, only 42 finished the degree so it's not a free lunch) I can expect to make between 40K and 60K CAD out of college and pay higher taxes than in the US. With a master's that I'm working towards, I'd be on the upper end of that spectrum. So boo-hoo to those making only 125K with equity and benefits.
I don't work for Amazon but here is my salary information, for anyone who is interested
Current position: 50-100 employee startup in Palo Alto, $170k and .1% equity vested over 4 years
Previous position: Google, $130k base, 15-20% annual bonus, around 64 shares vested per year (so around $170k annual net comp)Previous position: Small startup, $90k base
I live in the SF Bay Area. When I interviewed, most offers from startups were in the range of $140k-$170k.
Otherwise compensation is hard to compare.
I quit but my pay was ( Lin Seattle, numbers rounded a bit)
90k base53k initial grant, backloaded 5% after 1 year, 15 after 2, 20% every 6 months after that.37k signing bonus, 20k lump sum, 17k spread over 2nd year.
Raises were <1% at first review, 3.5% at second. So when I left after just over 2 years I was at 94k base. They did give me some more stock at my second review, but it was 2 years out iirc
Another thing that could be interesting is your accent. My eyes were recently opened about the discrimination that happens based on that.
The conversation always goes along the lines of "ohhh, I see you still have those wisdom teeth in there" and then that they are "impacted and going to cause lots of problems." To this day, I haven't had a single problem.
My biggest concern is the effect it will have on my airways -- I have sleep apnea so I'm worried that removing the teeth will cause the size of my already-small airways to become even smaller, causing even more of a damaging effect on the quality of my sleep.
When I was younger, my parents had to change insurance plans, so I got a new dentist. In the first visit, he takes a quick look at my mouth (with no tools, mind you) and confidently says I had 8 cavities that need drilling ASAP.
My previous dentist mentioned no such thing, so my mom took me back to him for a second opinion. He used tools to check, then told us the other dentist was full of shit and that this was surprisingly common.
The new dentist would have drilled 8 healthy teeth out of greed.
Theres no inherent reason humans should need to brush their teeth multiple times per day. In many places around the world, people never brush their teeth and most adults keep healthy teeth well into old age.
Dental cavities are caused by bacteria which eat sugar/starch. If you dont eat sugar, and only eat moderate amounts of starch, you generally wont get cavities, regardless of how much teeth brushing you do. If you eat lots of sugary and starchy foods, drink sugary drinks, etc., you will be at high risk for cavities, even if you brush your teeth frequently.
Patients who might have avoided the surgery in the absence of confirmed pathology are consigned to a numb jaw or lip or tongue for the rest of their lives.
The computer scientist in me should be more offended at the 2/3 spurious extraction rate and its subsequent drain on the economy, but that excerpt is what excited me.
Changing to https reveals a security cert valid for *.google.com, but not for www.zynamics.com.
Nonetheless, thanks Google for lowering the bar for entry into professional security work!
And now I see Stripe getting friendly with Cuba.
I don't have a clear point to make, as I'm writing this while still upset, but I just felt like I had to get my word out there perhaps to get some perspective or perhaps to start a discussion.
Many of small actions by a small number of focused people in Washington, in the Whitehouse, and entrepreneurs and bankers, may have a profound impact on millions of Cuban lives in a very short period of time.
Another good reminder (to abuse a quote), "chance favors the prepared" -- Stripe had already laid a lot of groundwork before Atlas to handle the systems required for this, and then they launched Atlas to handle many of the regulatory requirements, and so when this opportunity came along for Cuba, they were quickly able to take advantage of it.
- I'd like to open an account. What are the fees?
-> well umm I don't want to tell you until you open the account
- good luck with your chickens
This tends to engender some frustration.
A lot of government policy around things like welfare enrollment, security theater, or certain categories of crime follows similar incentives. "Solve the problem", especially in a cost effective way, and you're out of a job.
A libertarian magazine like Reason would be more than happy to seek and celebrate a libertarian revolution, whether one really exists or not.
OMG, the author just described the last place I was at. Processed a few Tb of data and suddenly there's this R. Goldbergesque system of MongoDb getting transformed into PostGres...oh, wait, I need Cassandra on my resume, so Mongo sux0r now...displayed with some of the worst bowl of spaghetti Android code I've witnessed. The technical debt hole was dug so deep you could hide an Abrams tank in there. To this day I could not tell you the confused thinking that led them to believe this was necessary rather than just slapping it all into PostGres and calling it a day.
All because they were processing data sets sooooo huge, that they would fit on my laptop.
I quit reading about the time the article turned into a pitch for Stitch Fix, but leading up to that point it made a good case for what happens when companies think they have "big data" when they really don't. In summary, either a company hires skills they don't really need and the hires end up bored, or you hire mediocre people that make the convoluted mess I worked with.
There is nothing more soul sucking than writing, maintaining, modifying, and supporting ETL to produce data that you yourself never get to use or consume.
This is like... your opinion. Some people find pushing around HTML / JS / CSS absolutely soul-crushing. Considering the lion's share of websites are ugly, unusable, and slow, does this mean that front-end engineering is a breeding ground of mediocrity, so server-side devs and CFOs should all be sharing in the pain?
Some people actually enjoy working with data, and don't find ETL and pipelining horrible to do at all. It is a different set of challenges, but calling people people mediocre because of ETL is a non-sequitur.
I've seen careers made and broken based on whether people got to play thinker or doer.
This makes rewards for thinking very lopsided. However the problem is that actual credit for success REALLY belongs with the people who did the work.
This problem shows up at every scale in every organization. For example there are hundred people who want to be the business side of a startup for every person who wants to build the tech. Why? The business person gets to be the thinker, the developer does the work. And then the business person expects to become the CEO and get the bulk of the payout!
The problem arises when someone gets into a position where they can think big thoughts without having to do any nitty gritty. Effectively, they end up jumping in right when the real producers have finished the actual work, and then coming up with some polish that makes it look like they came up with some interesting result.
This is not actually a way to get work done. It's a way to play politics.
Worse yet, it's actually completely detrimental to getting things done. When you have things split up between thinkers and doers, what do the incentives look like? It's quite simple. I may order some analysis, and I may not fully understand the nuances. But whatever happens, as a thinker I'll have to have something grandiose to say, and I'll need to keep the doers busy. That way if I don't find a real conclusion, it's everyone's fault. If I do find something, it's thanks to me.
Where I worked the people with the big plans couldn't code their way out of a paper bag. Ask them what Big-O is, they draw a blank. Ask them how their trading strategy will actually send orders to the exchange, they draw a blank. But ask them something that sounds like strategy, and they will feed you plenty of unsubstantiated BS.
My new venture is coders all the way down. Strategists who can actually use git without asking what it is, understand that algorithmic complexity actually matters, and so on. Coders who understand what the market is.
The notion that a data scientist's only job is to "write a statistical model" and then it's someone else's problem to run it in a distributed environment only exacerbates the problem and lowers DS code quality.
Full disclosure: my company Pachyderm  is trying to solve exactly the problem Jeff is talking about in the post. We've built a data processing platform on top of the container ecosystem. Basically, the data scientist has complete control over the runtime environment for their analysis since everything is bundled into a container. It scales to work for actual "big" data, but it also great for small teams that don't have massive infrastructure resources.
 http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/01/the-geek-shall-inherit-the... github.com/pachyderm/pachyderm
There's a large, active community of engineers who specialize in data, whose job is to technologically enable data scientists the means to perform their analyses. I know these people exist because I'm one of them, and I work with them, and I've met them at meetups and conferences. I don't know why the author doesn't think these types of engineers exist. Not all of us who code want to work with the web.
> If you read the recruiting propaganda of data science and algorithm development departments in the valley, you might be convinced that the relationship between data scientists and engineers is highly collaborative, organic, and creative. Just like peas and carrots.
Almost every data team I've worked with is structured this way. I work daily with data scientists. I have a data scientist sitting to my right, two data scientists sitting across from me. Our teams are highly integrated and I can't imagine it working any other way. If the teams the author is familiar with don't operate in this manner, then I can see why he'd think the endeavor is hopeless.
I also disagree with the author's conclusion. The data scientist's job is to analyze and interpret data. They should not be spending any time thinking about how to get that data. They should not be concerned about where the data is coming from. The more time scientists have to spend thinking about ETL, the less time they have to do what their training is in, statistical analysis.
I'm not sure I get why writing ETL code for data you'll never consume is any more soul-sucking than, say, refactoring JS code for a website you couldn't begin to care about (and which will never be properly re-designed anyway); or even doing "thinker"-level work but for an industry you couldn't begin to care about (advertising), etc.
In other words, what most developers of whatever technical stripe do for a living.
Granted that yes, lots of solutions don't exactly require a Hadoop cluster with thousands of nodes, this is a pretty gross and mean-spirited dig at "mediocre engineers" a number of times. It would be nice if we didn't treat people that don't work at Amazon/Google/Twitter/LinkedIn as lesser beings because they find their jobs at a probably-doesn't-have-Big-Data company.
(Does StitchFix have Big Data? If the answer is no, are their "Data platform engineers" mediocre?
Because that's what it is:
- It is attempting to question, critique, override, everyday decisions made by the management (including the CEO) based on available data.
- It is doing that with maximal knowledge of the whole organization. That means all the records, finances, secrets, what not, have to be divulged to the data-science team. (which in itself is an unsurmountable challenge, i.e., to convince the management to allow full data access; think emails, chat logs, meetings minutes of CEO's, VP's, etc, etc).
This will make the management go, "so let me get this straight, I authorize you access to data of the whole organization, and you come up with a conclusion (some of the times at least) that I'm full of it?"
I highly doubt any organization would be up for this kind of internal disruption, even if that means more success for the company.
"Big Data" is like sex in high school. Everyone talks about it but few people really have lots of it and some just don't have any.
This is one of the toughest parts of building a scalable organization (with or without big data). Getting past the idea of efficiency and being OK with redundancy.
This means allowing two teams to both build a common feature they might need, rather than establishing a dependency. It means making one teams job broader even if it overlaps with another team.
I find it interesting that we are perfectly willing to have redundancy on the software side (load balancing, slaves, etc) but not on the development side.
> If they are not bored, chances are they are pretty mediocre. Mediocre engineers really excel at building enormously over complicated, awful-to-work-with messes they call solutions.
And then comes this line:
>At Stitch Fix, we strive to be Best in the World at the algorithms and analytics we produce.
Without further justification, why does StitchFix, a subscription shopping service, need to be the "Best in the World" at algorithms and analytics? They have harder problems than Google or the Centers for Disease Control or NASA?
Unless they have justification for that, it seems a bit ironic given the article's ire for over-engineering.
A better idea imho is to have small crossfunctional teams where scientists and engineers work together to build only what they need with short iteration cycles.
If everyone involved doesn't have at least a broad perspective on the end-to-end purpose of what they're working on, they're probably going to build the wrong thing.
This just reads like a puff piece for another valley startup by some guy who's better than you. Oh, and here's how we do it, you should try doing it this way too, because we think it's totes the best.
The distinction between "Data Scientists" and "Engineers" is bogus, and the point about whether your data is "Big" is a red herring.
In reality, there should not be any distinctions between "scientists" and "engineers", you must strive to be both a "doer" and a "thinker". You can't think without doing, and can't do without thinking.
If you're in this field, and consider yourself an "engineer" but your math sucks, go read up on all you can about mathematics and statistics, just like you did back when you were learning about programming, operating systems and networking.
If you consider yourself a "data scientist" but don't know anything other than R and basic Python, go study programming and operating systems and networking, like you studied math at some point.
Somewhere on youtube I remember Dr. Donald Knuth (who is definitely an excellent programmer/engineer/computer scientist, arguably one of the best the world has known) saying that he considers himself primarily a mathematician.
Or, if you've read (or at least heard of) "the dragon book", you might find it interesting and inspiring that one of its main authors Dr. Jeffrey Ullman (whom I'd place in the same league as Knuth) went on to write another excellent (and available freely online, BTW) book "Mining of Massive Datasets", which IMHO is the one fundamental "big data" book out there.
So Data Scientists - go learn some programming languages like C and study UNIX and may be read "The Art of Computer Programming" and Engineers go read http://www.mmds.org/.
Then you'll all get along.
Another point I'd like to make is that not everyone hates ETL and pipeline management. I happen to like it. It's rewarding to stand up reliable self-healing data pipelines and ETLs.
That's the fundamental action of computation. Read, compute, write.
This is a stupid article.
"Big" data on the command line.
(Corollary to that rule of thumb: if your data fits on a hard drive, all "big data" tools you need are shell scrips and SQLite.)
personally, i think, there is nothing wrong with being average .. people with average skills built great things
mediocre is just a mean way to say average
> Data scientists ... aka the thinkers
> Data engineers ... aka "the doers"
> Infrastructure engineers ... aka "the plumbers"
The author is clearly not an infrastructure engineer.
> "Rather than try to emulate the structure of well-known companies (who made the transition from BI to DS), we need to innovate and evolve the model! No more trying to design faster horses
A couple years ago, I moved to Stitch Fix for just that very reason. At Stitch Fix, we strive to be Best in the World at the algorithms and analytics we produce. We strive to lead the business with our output rather than to inform it."
I find this article rather peculiar. At the start, you'd be forgiven for thinking this was an article about a company looking to find a solution to a problem, but as the article progresses it's clearer that they're selling themselves as the solution to the problem they outlined.
In other words, they start off looking like a customer, but only to set up the premise required to sell the solution to the problem their company supposedly has/had. Turned me off from taking the product seriously.
I think PostgreSQL fulltext search (with tsvector, tsquery etc.) is given an unfairly bad rap though. I'm not sure that "full text search works best when the text vectors are stored in physical columns with an index" is true - in my experience there's no performance penalty to just indexing the tsvector expression - no need to worry about additional columns or triggers.
I also think the assertion that the key problem is that "full text search is that words are broken up according to the rules defined by the language of the text" is very context-dependent. In many situations that's the most awesome feature of fulltext search. Usually when I search for "cat" I'm not interested in results for catacombs or categories, but when I search for restaurants, results matching restaurant (singular) are relevant too.
I definitely see that for a use-case like GitLab's, where the data includes code, full text search's stemming would be a hindrance rather than a help.
An autocomplete search for e.g. "rub rai" becomes the following SQL query:
select * from topics where name ilike "%rub%rai%";
create extension pg_trgm; create index topic_name_gin on topics using gin (name gin_trgm_ops);
next on the map: discovering how shitty dictionary management is, the joys of NLP, and abandoning the project entirely because you realize all this stuff has already been solved in 3 or 4 different ways and the getting-the-data-from-the-database-to-the-search-engine process isn't really that bad, and pulling your hair out from customers asking insane questions because they don't understand how search engines actually work and why can't this be like google? can't you just do it how google does it, even though you don't have $100B and 50,000 employees?
i realize this is more of a product feature but i have ptsd on this topic so i had to vent.
So no, not 'lost without a trace'.
Also, as an alternative to the proposed `set +e; ...; set -e` wrapper for retrieving the exit status of something expected to exit non-zero (generally cleaner in my opinion, if slightly "clever"):
retval=0 count=$(grep -c some-string some-file) || retval=$?
What you should do to avoid the problem of mishandling spaces is use proper quoting (for i in "$@"; do ...), not changing IFS; setting IFS to \n\t will still break embedded tabs and newlines.
In general, in bash scripts any of use of $ should always be between double quotes unless you have a reason to do otherwise.
> Why doesn't set -e (or set -o errexit, or trap ERR) do what I expected?
> set -e was an attempt to add "automatic error detection" to the shell. Its goal was to cause the shell to abort any time an error occurred, so you don't have to put || exit 1 after each important command. That goal is non-trivial, because many commands intentionally return non-zero.
> What are the advantages and disadvantages of using set -u (or set -o nounset)?
> Bash (like all other Bourne shell derivatives) has a feature activated by the command set -u (or set -o nounset). When this feature is in effect, any command which attempts to expand an unset variable will cause a fatal error (the shell immediately exits, unless it is interactive).
pipefail is not quite as bad, but is nevertheless incompatible with most other shells.
I know a little bit about this. It's not "self-driving" car per se. You know with current technology we can't have completely driver-less cars. But to get there we need a lot of data. Uber and Lyft saw all the rides on their systems and thought if we had a lot of sensors in cars and recored all of that we could have the winning factor for self driving cars which is data.
In order to record that data they need customized cars. They also need to own the car to own the data associated with it (this is my assumption).
It's just that they sold all this stuff to ISPs who didn't have any good credit lines, so Lucent extended them credit (bing! interest payments!) using the MAXen as collateral.
When the ISP dialup market collapsed, the ISPs returned the equipment in lieu of payment. That equipment had no value whatsoever, because anybody who wanted one and could afford one already had two.
Presumably there's some sort of secondary market for cars -- but a hundred thousand black S-Class is about what they've sold in the US over the last 7 years combined.
Uber gets it's fleet, Mercedes gets the tech. It's getting competitive. Mercedes will get the tech perfected, but this kind of deal could get them there much faster. Access to Uber's team, and more importantly mountains of data that Uber is taking the risk for will probably speed up refinement of the tech.
It is also clearly stated there that Daimler is not expecting to be able to deliver such a car before 2020.
Basically, Uber said: "Once you're able to build a self-driving S class, we will buy 100.000 of them".And Daimler said: "We will come back to it."
Uber operates in a grey-area legal environment in the cities it operates in. Uber's defense / view on this is that they generate such a societal positive in terms of jobs that it outweighs the legal constraints.
But, when your goal is to eventually use a fleet of self-driving cars and eliminate the job possibilities for drivers, isn't that a moot point?
It says they plan to buy "a six digit number of cars", and they're only interested in self driving cars.
I found this list of sizes for existing commercial fleets. They would be besting UPS for total fleet size if all 100k were on the road at once. http://www.fleet-central.com/content/pdf/AUTOF_top300commerc...
Look at what Uber has done:
* Uber buys Nokia Here Maps for their map part and for their street imagery part.
* Uber hires robotics department.
* Uber knows today's business is supposed to be the transition phase to going into a zipcar like car-on-demand service.
There aren't too many data points here, but the only thing I can glean from this is Uber wants to have robotic cars to pick you up and drop you off and will plan that future by storing street imagery, instead of that LiDAR based method the others are doing.
Why would they even sell the cars, when they can rent them out and make much bigger margins ?
Uber's current strength is it's database of drivers, but since we're talking self-driving cars here, that become irrelevant.
It's not like Mercedes or BMW lack brand recognition in the transportation space...
This is a large scale capital investment in a safe luxury service that Uber can sell in certain markets. I'm betting the s-class needs very little hardware to wire into what UATC is developing.
The S-Class is a great car, but I'm sure there are Uber-specific improvements that can be made. Why would you order some many of something 'off-the-shelf'?
If that was the case, the volume makes sense. Makes zero sense to buy 100,000 of today's model and watch it depreciate in value while providing none back 'cause you still need a driver.
Imagine Daimler can produce 100,000 self-driving cars. They would continue to produce and sell self-driving cars to other people as well. They could sell self-driving cars to Lyft. Individuals could operate their own self-driving car services. They could organize in to cartels and have a single app that competes with Uber or Lyft.
Uber is destined to be a commodity in an open marketplace of taxi services as soon as they adopt self-driving cars. Their primary roll right now is as a labor organization. They currently create the economic incentives needed to attract a fleet of drivers. Self-driving cars are not motivated by economic incentives. Uber can't control the sale, distribution and organization of self-driving cars.
All that riders care about is being able to reliably get from one side of town to another. They'll know that they can trust Daimler self-driving cars, regardless of the dispatcher.
We're going to end up right back to where we started, with a commodity system of private taxi dispatchers and a productive industry of automobile manufacturers, with an emphasis on the automatic nature of this new form of transportation.
Daimler is the big winner here if they can bring a self-driving car to market.
There comes a point at which the helpfulness of technology becomes a form of oppression: walled gardens, predictive services making the wrong predictions, and every social platform forcing us to use our real names. It's cute when it's small, but what happens when self-driving cars can collude with the cops?
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/one-star ( previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11149653 )
Around a month ago the source file table on Coveralls.io hit a transaction wraparound, and put us in read-only mode for over 24 hours while RDS engineers performed a full vacuum (that's not something that can be done manually as a customer). On a managed database I'm paying thousands a month for, I was hoping there would be some sort of early warning system. Well, apparently there is, but it's buried in the logs, and won't trigger any app exceptions so went un-noticed.
What's worse is there's 0 indication of how long a vacuum is going to take, nor progress updates while it's going. So for a production web app with customers, this means damage control language like:
"Our engineers have identified a database performance issue and working to mitigate. Unfortunately we do not have an ETA at this time."
About a week later, more calamity hit: the INT "id" field on the same table exceeded the max length. My first thought was change it to a BIGINT, but after ~4 hrs into the migration without any indication of how much longer it would take, I pulled the plug and sharded the table instead.
Moral of the story is that web devs should be aware of these pitfalls, and that no matter how much trust you put into a managed database service, it still could happen to you (queue ominous background music).
Anyway I'm glad to see this lurking monster in our beloved database tamed, thank you Mr Haas!
A long way of saying: this is a nasty failure mode, and it's terrific to see the PostgreSQL team tackle it. While there are still some questions (e.g., this sounds like the autovacuum is still kicked but that is at once more aggressive and more intelligent, but does that mean that an exclusive lock on the table is still blocked for the duration of the operation?), this is clearly a big leap in the right direction, and (more) validation that we've made the right choice for our transactional data; thank you PostgreSQL team!
They solved the problem by moving the SSD after I left, but I feel like incorporating this patch might actually let them reduce the size of their Postgres cluster, or at least grow it slower.
For just Postgres, he has completed:
- No more full table vacuums
- Parallel Sequential Scan
- Major memory improvements for NUMA
- Major improvements for large multi-core systems
My only concern is that it appears that Robert is the only person tackling big/major improvements for Postgres.
I might be wrong, but that's the perception. I hope this isn't the case and other are also tackling big improvements to Postgres.
PostgreSQL remains one of those great products that you can argue for and win based on the quality, documentation and performance of the product.
A storage design that requires periodic maintenance doesn't seem a good one.
The federal government is already basically putting money in the pockets of universities by subsidizing the loans up-front. Making them tax-free on the back-end will probably have similar unintended consequences.
Who is your third-party custodian? Wealthfront uses Apex Clearing and makes this explicit.
What ETFs do you allow employees to choose from? Again, others (e.g. Captain 401k) make this explicit.
Can employees choose their options in a fine grained manner, or does everyone need to opt-in to your rebalancing and changing of ETF options?
To whom do you have access for investment? DFA has a great portfolio of so-called "unmanaged" index funds. They have a low burden, much of it not front-loaded. And they've been around a long time. There are other similar funds.
How do you avoid the Zenefits craziness as you grow?
"Unavailable For Legal Reasons
This request may not be serviced in the Roman Province of Judea due to the Lex Julia Majestatis, which disallows access to resources hosted on servers deemed to be operated by the People's Front of Judea."
So in the articles example, GitHub should really include who is requesting the DCMA in the response.
Coincidence? I think not!
Edit: Wikipedia knows it all, as always. 
I am a government who is censoring content. I do not like the explicitly saying I am 'censoring' the internet I instruct my infrastructure not to use the status code 451. and I instruct my nation's infrastructure to reject or rewrite all responses with 451 status code to 404.
What stops me?
First time I saw it was in December and after that in January, both on the same site. The site that was blocked was archive.is.
This block was targeted at Finland and none of the different Internet connections I tried could get to the site, I tried my home connection, cellular and connecting from my school network. It's a shame that anyone even thought of censoring such an useful tool for history and other legitimate uses. I wrote a thing about it to a Finnish newspaper and a few weeks after that the block was gone. I suspect that the newspaper conatcted archive.is and it was removed so they don't get bad publicity.
It was kind of ironical that I had to subvert the archive.is censorship to read an archived version of a thread discussing web censorship in Sweden.
I think this error code is a bad idea as it legitimizes censorship.
I do have one suggestion: don't try to emulate the feature set of Emacs org mode exactly. While I love org mode, the setup time and effort was many orders of magnitude greater than any other tool I've used before, and I can't say it enabled me to be many orders of magnitude more productive. I would love to have an org mode with sensible defaults (such as indented bullets, project-based agenda view, etc...) with a narrow feature set. For me, the killer features are:
* Mixed notes and TODOs. It was a revelation to be able to just type a TODO into any notes and know that this will magically appear on my master TODO list. But for this to be useful, you really need...
* The agenda view. For those not familiar, this is essentially a consolidated list of todos across all your org files. But I never found the default agenda view that useful, so I again spent lots of time writing one myself. Now I use it many times a day.
* Timers. The way org mode does timers is miles better than any other time tracking software I've ever used.
* Flexible 'projects'. In org mode I have a lot of flexibility in how I treat projects (for me a project is simply a TODO with 1 or more nested TODO). With my agenda view I can quickly see all my projects with two keystrokes.
* Flexible TODO recurrence. Most task managers only let you repeat a TODO every so often, but org has a powerful syntax for defining whatever recurrence pattern you want (i.e. do this task every week on Friday and have it done within 3 days)
* TODOs dates as scheduled or deadlines. It is always surprising to me how other task managers don't recognize this difference. If you schedule yourself to do something on a certain date, it is very different than saying 'you have to get this done by this date'.
* TODO workflows. Most task managers have tepid support for a TODO as a workflow with potential alternate and blocking states (such as waiting on someone before you can do the TODO), but with org mode you can precisely define TODO workflows and do all sorts of cool stuff with them.
* Habits. The way org does habits is simply brilliant.
Keep up the good work!
It's on Package Control and at https://github.com/aziz/PlainTasks
Oh, and tables. Having what is basically a spreadsheet that I can manipulate without ever touching my trackpad is a serious win.
Sadly, I doubt these features will ever be available outside of emacs. Org-mode probably deserves it's own app.
However, when I want to make big changes, I work locally. Ideally, I'd be warned if I forget to update my local repo when I try to edit.
I couldn't understand from the article how the hydrogen was being used in a "gas gun". Since pure hydrogen doesn't ignite, wouldn't we care about the molecular weight of the oxidizer as well?
It turns out the "light gas" is important just for it's low molecular molecular weight. It's never ignited, and one could substitute Helium for Hydrogen if one wanted. The gas is a second stage in addition to, rather than instead of the gunpowder. It's like a spring-air gun, but instead of spring you use an explosive charge.
Here's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun
And here's some PVC experimentation:http://www.chrisfenton.com/2-stage-light-gas-gun/
Even though this wouldn't be appropriate for use for delicate satellites, I wonder if this would be a critical piece of equipment for industrialized space - raw materials like fuel and oxygen and structural materials. Unfortunately full satellites would be a challenge since googling reveals that experiments involving these things included 10,000 gees of acceleration.
You would have to be pretty naive to think the Iraqi's, who always wanted to be the dominant Persian Gulf state in the region, would actually use this for its intended purpose and not weaponize it to intimidate its neighbors in the region.
They're coming to car/refrigerator/toaster near you.
Right. This may be the beginning of the end of remote software updates for "security fixes". The backdoor implicit in remote software updates may be a bigger risk than the existing hole. If anybody ever gets (or already has) Microsoft's or Apple's signing key, there's going to be big trouble.