My bet is that since trending likes are a Graph DB problem, SoundCloud just chose not to solve it once it became too hard on their database. They famously had issues with early Mongo adoption so this would fit right in. Their most recent frontend HTML5 rewrite always winds up my CPU and hasn't changed in a couple years.
SoundCloud to me has always been a great idea with some great design that got ruined by some poor engineering choices from the top. And at the end by a desperate grab for stats and cash. I think producers would have paid more, better subsidizing free plans, if discovery hadn't gone downhill. I ran the numbers once on how CDbaby and Bandcamp became successful (based on stats trickled out over the years) while SoundCloud could never turn a profit. There's still plenty of room for someone to do this right.
I switched to Amazon music, which I pay ~ $6/mo. I couldn't be happier. I'm actually happy to pay money to have access to almost anything I ever want to listen to. they even have obscure Drum n bass albums (which surprised me). As great as AM is, it doesn't fully replace SC for me. No podcasts or indie music by random Australian dude without record deals.
As for Berlin, I am sorry to say: I had high-hopes for the tech culture there, but to call it Mickey Mouse would be a charitable statement. It was laden with confused hipsters who couldn't differentiate between language du jour and its monads and delivering a product.
When I applied, the warning signs were strong. Nevertheless I ignored them to my own peril. Needless to say, I won't make those mistakes again!
Right before I resigned, it was revealed in a private leads meeting that 18 percent of the engineering force had resigned in that given quarter. Was I surprised? Not in the slightest. That knowledge gave me resolve to get out, which I hadn't yet announced.
If you are hiring, please reach out to people from SoundCloud. The decisions of who to let go were not based on performance. A lot of amazing people, both attitude and technically.
> Well, SoundCloud just laid off all of its New York engineering
> Literally the entire payments and subscriptions team, ads-eng, monetization engineering, everybody
> Not really clear to me how the execs think this company will be able to make money from now on
Spotify, Pandora, and Soundcloud fixed just about everything that people said was wrong with the industry from the consumer point of view. And don't give me that line about the labels screwing artists because thanks to fans who won't even pay for a premium subscription, Spotify literally can't afford to pay artists more without going under entirely.
TL;DR - music doesn't want to be free. Selfish people want it to be free.
This is not the case on SoundCloud, where I'm almost always jolted back to reality when the next song comes on.
Just a very steady decline over the past two years.
Their talented team will easily land of their feet anywhere else, it's a shame that someone's so previously unique is fading away due to trying to compete with Spotify.
Removing Likes & Groups have really pissed off their community.
Once groups were cancelled, the listens on the songs I post to Soundcloud plummeted to virtually nothing, and I really don't bother to upload my music there anymore, nor to go to Soundcloud to discover new music.
edit: now it's at 35... ouch
Does SoundCloud see itself as an audio streaming service now, as opposed to an audio hosting service? That seems like a focus shift away from where they started, and puts them up against behemoths like Spotify. Maybe that's related to why they're struggling.
Tangentially: does anyone have any idea of how Bandcamp is doing?
I think I'm reiterating what has been said before, but the reposting is horrendous. It's made the listening experience quite poor from just using the activity stream. I've also been really unimpressed with the lack of track uniqueness - if 2 artists repost the same song, it'll show up in my stream twice. Even more frustrating was the lack of uniqueness between tracks & playlists, where one could conceivably listen to the same song multiple times in a row because artists would post the track and then a single-track playlist with that track inside it.
The UI is also lacking for quickly adding to playlists, etc. The simplicity was a feature, not a bug, and the power of SoundCloud has been their artist community.
I know that SoundCloud's interview process is tough, so I guess it's a good day for companies looking for talent around Berlin.
$4.99 - SoundCloud Go $9.99 - SoundCloud Go+
According to the SoundCloud Blog circa 2016 (and most external reviews), "SoundCloud Go" is the plan with the expanded catalogue:https://blog.soundcloud.com/2016/03/29/introducing-soundclou...
However, according to the SoundCloud Blog circa 2017, "SoundCloud Go+" is now the plan with the expanded catalogue:https://blog.soundcloud.com/2017/02/28/introducing-new-sound...
Is there some sort of "bait and switch" going on here?
I can only think that SoundCloud purposely shuffled the product names around to make us think that the $4.99 plan includes the expanded catalogue, comparable to Apple Music / Spotify. Or am I mistaken, and the $4.99 plan does include a catalogue comparable to Apple Music / Spotify?
Furthermore, both plans advertise more tracks (120M+ tracks) compared to Apple Music or Spotify (30M tracks), making it even more difficult to reconcile what you're getting. And the $4.99 price point is further complicated by Apple Music, which also offers a $4.99 price point (for students).
The product branding, pricing and positioning here is bonkers for anyone comparison shopping, reading external reviews or simply trying to understand what you get. It's easier to do nothing, and simply continue using the free service (and switch to Spotify from time to time to fill in the blanks).
Was it in order to find the right talent? There are great people in other, less expensive cities.
Presumably they're hurt by the presence of platforms such as Youtube or the 2010s' rebooted Myspace, where musicians can reach a larger audience and where both sides of the equation are subsidized by ads.
Meanwhile, more focused sites like Beatport appeared to have a successful recipe by selling actual tracks for download despite essentially offering unlimited streaming, yet even they ran into some trouble with their latest pivot.
It's a tough space to make money in, despite seemingly meeting a popular need.
Not that it would be hard to get a job in our industry, but well.. :)
They've been futzing around a bit too, they started as WeAreHunted, then got acquired by Twitter to become Twitter Music, then shut down, then restarted as Wonder.fm.
Making money in music is HARD.
In other words, if you have a temperature or are vomiting, that's obvious. Many infections or physical injury can be trivially verified by a doctor. But a "sanity day", as truthful and necessary as it might be, is neither of those.
Out of curiosity, I checked my current employment contract. It says sick leave is for "A personal illness, injury or medical disability that prevents the employee from performing his or her job, or personal medical or dental appointments." or "Exposure of the employee to contagious disease when attendance at work would jeopardize the health of others." There's a dozen or so other cases listed in the contract, mostly about allowing sick leave to care for sick family members/children. Our contract also allows for verification, "If the Employer suspects abuse, the Employer may require a written medical certificate for any sick leave absence."
I've never heard of anyone here being asked for a verification, but it would tend to discourage people doing the "sanity day" sort of thing.
The "still" is incredibly premature when it comes to mental health in the workplace. We're just scratching the surface when it comes to acknowledging, accepting and understanding those with mental health disorders. Depression, ADHD and even Autism Spectrum and OCD are all on the leading edge of disorders that are receiving less stigmatization and more acceptance over time. But there's a lot more in the DSM-V that are completely misunderstood or completely unpublicized. And our workplaces are completely unprepared to deal with them.
I saw this first hand at my previous employer. We had a coworker who had a number of personal disagreements with other coworkers. In discussing it with my mother, a psychologist, she mentioned that much of his behavior sounded, to her, like someone with Borderline Personality Disorder. He was everyone's best friend up until they did anything he interpreted as being against him at which point he'd flip and try to sabotage them at every opportunity, including filing numerous baseless claims with HR. The organization was completely unprepared to deal with an individual like him. Each HR claim he filed was treated seriously, but there was never encouragement or a requirement that he talk to a trained mental health professional who could have been helped guide the company to a productive outcome. Instead, his conflicts with other employees caused at least 3 of them to quit before he was eventually forced out of the company for taking on someone who had too much pull with upper management. I can only imagine the carnage that would have been caused if he had been a she and had been able to abuse the sexual harassment policies.
HR is only trained to help the company avoid getting sued. But there's damage to both the employee and the company that can happen without the lawyers getting involved. The company's HR failed him and the rest of us that had to work with him by not knowing how to deal with that sort of psychological disorder.
Rather than "it's 2017 and mental health is still an issue," I'd say, "it's 2017 and we're finally starting to acknowledge the long road ahead of us."
There was an eng manager that would pester people about vaguer emails asking for clarification. I really wanted to just sit him down and explain that he isn't being clever and he was basically being a jackass for prying into people's personal lives - vague email is vague for a reason.
As someone who struggled with depression for two decades, while ultimately thwarted, it was a hopeless, numbing plague. As a coping mechanism, I developed my career working remotely. I was unable to function within a typical office environment. At home I could steal away to my bedroom and hide from the black under cover of blanket, when I needed to.
It's encouraging to see the silent struggle find words and champions. May others who are going through the darkness find supportive and loving environments; any change to find them is worth it. You are the author of your journey and the hero: write a happy story.
When we chatted, he basically laid down that he was concerned- when I had worked for him, I'd been depressed. He wanted to protect his startup from that kind of attitude. So there I was jumping through hoops to assure him that I had gotten therapy, that I was keeping an eye on it, on and on... only afterwards did I realize how fucked up that was.
Yes, he's got a right to try to protect a fragile young startup. But on the other hand, he's doing it via discrimination due to health issues.
In the end, I also realized something else that mattered: I was always feeling like shit those days that I worked for him in large part because of how he ran things. After he left, we got a much better manager who honestly seemed to work hard to make me happy. Why the hell would I want to go work for that guy again in the first place?
My mental illness is sufficiently severe that I need months, not days, to unpack and unwind, and I haven't felt not-burnt-out in about half a decade. I only get to do this between jobs.
I'm glad that this situation worked out alright for the employee, but there often isn't enough sick leave available.
People don't talk about it because they don't want to all of a sudden be treated differently because 'mental health', and now people around you are walking on egg-shells or being fake supportive.
Why can't it just be a personality thing - some people need time alone more than others, for whatever reason that is. When you start labelling it mental health, all you're doing is self-diagnosing yourself into a hole that's hard to get out of. Unless you have debilitating problems of course, in which case the employer should know from day 1.
You put on a smile, try to follow the usual routine as a robot, and secretly go to your therapist to try to fix it before someone catches on. I was lucky therapy got me out of it, or at least mostly smoothed it out, in under 6 months.
now, moving on to the rest of the post: of course it's still an issue. taking sick time for any reason is still an issue. everyone feels the pressure to not be sick, to not take sick time, and to work while sick. i have never worked for any organization where this was not the case-- even in some good places that were good to their workers-- and have only escaped it by working for myself.
>Its 2017. I cannot believe that it is still controversial to speak about mental health in the workplace when 1 in 6 americans are medicated for mental health.
you see, mental health is more of a threat than "physical" health. you get better from having a cold. you sniffle through a few days of work, maybe take a day at home, then sniffle through another day or two, and the lost productivity stops.
the spectre of mental health is that it is a long term sap on an employee's productivity that will also have flare-ups which result in time taken off, total work stoppage, malingering, unreliability, and bad morale. and it can't really be "cured" just treated. it's the profit seeking organization's nightmare. they'd never hire someone mentally ill, if they could reliably avoid being sued for their discrimination.
>Its 2017. I cannot believe that it is still controversial to offer paid sick leave.
only in the blisteringly backwards and proudly ignorant USA is it controversial. we are far behind the rest of the world when it comes to labor rights and treating people like human beings.
elsewhere the issue is settled definitively. to be blunt the CEOs haven't done their part in fighting for this basic right, nor has the government, nor have the workers. everyone has too much to lose by being the one to push, so nobody pushes.
>Our jobs require us to execute at peak mental performance. When an athlete is injured they sit on the bench and recover. Lets get rid of the idea that somehow the brain is different.
the difference is that an athlete ages out of being competitive after a time, and so their profit-driven self-infliction of injury ends earlier.
workers are stressed by work for most of their lives, for most of the hours of their waking day. work is far more detrimental to people's brains than being an athlete is to the body.
oh yeah, and workers can't choose when to stop, unless they want to choose to stop eating too. to be blunt there's no way that american workers could possibly operate at peak mental performance with their mental scaffolding so occupied with maintaining job security. this causes mental illness too, of course.
name a bigger stressor for people than their jobs / money.
>Take some time this week to express gratitude to individuals on your team. You might be surprised at the positive impact.
this is a bare minimum, not part of any solution.
the real solution (which won't be implemented because it is expensive) is to have an iron law in your corporation that your employees must take X paid sick days per year or per month. it's that simple.
then it won't be an issue, because it'll be a policy that people are forced to follow. there's no guilt about taking sick days for any health reason at that point. nobody feels like they're being dead weight when they take a sick day.
>Take some time to reflect on how your companys values help create a safe-space for your teammates
this is more likely to be lip service or self-deception at most companies than it is a reality. most companies value profit, and act accordingly when that value contradicts the health of their employees because their employees are replaceable.
>1 in 6 of whom is likely medicated for a mental health issue.
this should tell us that our society is violently unhealthy for our minds, as is our work culture.
and they are.
If Tom and/or Shlomi are reading this: you mention taking multiple logical backups per day. What benefit does this bring versus just having one per day and doing a point-in-time restore using binlogs? Is this just a tradeoff between time taken for a restore and storage you're willing to dedicate to backups?
Disclaimer: I work on Facebook's MySQL backup and restore system (https://code.facebook.com/posts/1007323976059780/continuous-...)
I always end up spending a fair amount of time using tools like:
And of course stackoverflow.
It now seems to be Open Source (MIT):
This move by Letsencrypt should hopefully make them the standard for any external service that doesn't require an EV cert.
To be clear, the reason I am asking is that historically a CA was intended to be a way to validate "who" you are talking to. LetsEncrypt is providing a signed cert that does not validate an entity. It just solves the self signed cert, which could also be solved in applications by having a setting to "Accept Self Signed Certs". Some apps and appliances already have this.
An example: I run a vm that exposes mysubdomain.azure.com, can I turn on ssl at that level? A google search says "no" but I figure this is a place where someone might have a workaround.
See: https://www.plex.tv/blog/its-not-easy-being-green-secure-com... and https://blog.filippo.io/how-plex-is-doing-https-for-all-its-...
[*.a.company.com] and [*.b.company.com]
p.s. How do I get an inline asterisk into my HN comment!?
I worked in a few places that had a *.company.com which covered, obviously, everything under that domain.
That meant if that wildcard cert leaked then our EV cert for, say, checkout.company.com would be essentially compromised too.
Not to mention. If you have a wildcard cert it's rather likely you're passing those certs around servers, lots of scope for leakage.
I really think that if you feel the need to do wildcard certificates, then you should at least try to figure out another way around it. I'm not saying you absolutely must never use them, but be incredibly mindful of what is at stake and limit the scope and availability of such certs as much as possible.
For instance. Don't put the same wildcard on mail servers and IM servers and git servers and etc; a compromise of one will compromise them all and the revokation system is not good enough.
Wildcard certs, that are generally seen as a security risk, and could have been alleviated for most legitimate uses with higher limits on issuance per domain will be supported.
But S/MIME, the email encryption option that actually works out of the box in basically every mail client, sorry, nothing doing.
This means that in addition to the dynamic linker loading libraries at random addresses, in a random order, the offsets inside the library itself are different on each boot, and on each system.
Robert Peichaer (rpe@) added the kernel re-linking at install/upgrade:https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=149884116824098
This is surely true, but at least on Windows the central security holes do not lie in Windows itself (these kinds of holes exist - but exploits are very expensive, which shows that they are typically rare and not easy to exploit), but in third-party applications.
For example the current 2017 version of the Petya ransomware was spreaded via a security hole in the software update mechanism in the Ukrainian tax preparation software M.E.Doc. Other well-known attack vectors that are commonly used to attack Windows PCs are Flash Player and the Java browser plugin.
My best guess: A leaked kernel pointer could be used to find an offset for the KASLR kernel, and that offset could produce a working payload for some other unrelated kernel shell code exploit.
If that's correct, KARL seems like a pretty fringe improvement over KASLR. Can anyone educate me?
I'm curious to hear from people working in infosec: is that real problem? How do you see the tradeoff?
Bringing up WiFi on a device with no security and a keyboard-type connection to a more important machine is a recipe for being taken over.
Holy shit Kyle, that is a HUGE about face for you!
If there's a key that can create users and arbitrary records, and the key is stored in plaintext in your browser code, what's to keep an enterprising user from using your FaunaDB instance as their own data store if they copy-paste the key into their own scripts?
Does FaunaDB protect against a resource usage attack where the client key is used to (maliciously) create millions or billions of new users, costing $$$$?
What is the point in having database access with secrets available to the end-user and how is that secure?
Has anything changed other than developer's comfort with connecting directly from the browser to the backend? Mobile apps are common, and single page applications are accepted. In my experience moving to a simpler stack is good for security.
> He thinks the theft-prevention system interfered with his implant and turned it off.
This makes far more sense as a possible cause of interference than a motion detector and motor.
Am I misunderstanding this, or do these devices not do even the most rudimentary false-input rejection? EMI is one thing, but it sounds more like their radio is accepting random noise as valid commands.
For those who don't know, ELF is the name of the format for Linux (and other OSs) executable files, and it's had that name for almost 30 years.
What the author seems to be advocating is some sort of normalization process for the peer review process... it's not entirely clear what she is calling for. I've always advocated for double blind reviews, but it's very difficult for these to work because in small fields such as my own, it's pretty trivial to figure out who wrote the proposal. So it one sense, the rich get richer, but so long as the science that comes out of it is good, so be it! You aren't going to get R1 research done when you have a 3/3 teaching load with no graduate support, that's just life.
I have been on both sides of the review process and I have yet to feel like I was snubbed in my earlier "toiling" days, nor have I, when reviewing, felt compelled to award someone just because they were a "star" - if anything, I might even be more critical when reviewing proposals and papers from "stars". For me, though, I just basically follow the guidelines for evaluating proposals and let the chips fall where they may.
>"That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish' and `reject'. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven't already done it?'"
That said, double-blind at review time for papers into conferences/journals makes a lot of sense, and does (in my experience) absolutely help level the playing field a bit...
Im not an academic, so I dont have very strong opinions, but from just reading about it at a surface level it feels like there are solvable problems in that system besides copyright and profit margins.
Publication builds eminence (publish-or-perish), determines eminence and (as this article suggests) is determined by eminence. Meanwhile, the system of publication is based against null results & repetitive/conformational experiments. This actually keeps valuable data out of the scientific body of knowledge in ways that harm the mission.
There are other issues that have more to do with the book-like format of articles. Could review be separated from publishing (so that publication can be multiple)? Could publications (that do not emit null results) be structured in a way that embeds meta-study by default?
Basically, what does science want/need from publication. Is it just the current model but free (beer & love) or something bigger?
Thus when the publication publishes a paper, the judgment, however biased, is based on the paper alone, and not the author.
>The weights and measures committee will meet this month to establish a global value for Planck's constant by averaging the values calculated at NIST and other labs. And in 2018, at the next General Conference on Weights and Measures, the scientific community will draft a resolution to redefine kilogram based on this constant.
Looks like the current title "NIST to redefine the kilogram based on a fundamental universal constant" is confusing because it implies that NIST defines kilogram but it's International Committee's for Weights and Measures job.
Can we stop this nonsense? It would be a big problem if it were true, but it isn't. It's the later (contamination weight gain) and we have fairly good understanding of what's going on. For example, see https://phys.org/news/2013-01-kilogram-weight.html
What's really need though is a universal, stable over eons, single standard for time, length, and mass. I believe time is N cycles of an excited sodium (light) emission. Length is N wavelengths of that same emission in a vacuum. Mass would be N atoms.
So why are they not using a single element to define everything? Is it a matter of finding the proper element that is easy to excite and stable enough (chemically and atomically) over the long term? Sodium is very reactive and easy to excite. Silicon is probably the opposite.
>Based on 16 months' worth of measurements, it calculated Planck's constant to be 6.626069934 x 1034 kgm2/s.
The other parts are a bit "woo" and I'm sure would be laughed at by the HN crowd. But his points about fundamental "constants" changing, and the metrologists' dogmatic (really, anti-scientific) response, are worth pondering.
Would it have been possible to define it as the weight of N amount of electrons (assuming all electrons have the exact same weight under all circumstances) or another fundamental particle?
EDIT: it would be the weight of 9.10938356e31 electrons at rest
Although, it makes sense politically
So, this is really cool stuff.
I wish they had a more detailed about page and feature list, but I am still excited about this.
If the MTA also supports some other protocol that affords end-to-end encryption, that's great, but now you need to use special client software that is either proprietary or seriously lacking in features. This is ProtonMail's way of offering encrypted email.
ProtonMail is currently working on a proxy called ProtonMail Bridge that runs on the client and talks to legacy MUAs. All communication between Bridge and the outside world is still encrypted. That sounds like a good idea to me, since I have no intention to stop using Thunderbird anytime soon. It's also probably the only way to bring end-to-end encryption to a large number of people, since it embraces and accommodates the inertia around email instead of arrogantly telling people to switch and wondering why they don't. When it comes to email, backward compatibility is everything.
I'm not sure if Lavavit's Magma can fill the same need; the documentation is rather sparse. But I would gladly run a local MTA if it means I can have my cake (end-to-end encryption) and eat it too (compatibility with legacy MUAs). DIME also looks like a much more open protocol than the vendor-specific stuff that ProtonMail is using.
I got a chuckle about your dad still running his C128 for financials. Their was a local optometrist here who ran his entire practice on Tandy Color Computers, networked together in a multi-tasking environment running OS9. Each and every part of it was custom written by the doctor. I think he retired a few years back, but I know it was still running his home brewed system then.
It was my first exposure to programming, and a bit too early perhaps. Other than an occasional session on an ancient TRS-80 in high school, I didn't do any real programming again until taking a Turbo Pascal course in the mid 90s in college.
This is just amazing.
I loved doing type-in listings though. A while back I started making a game "BASIC Instincts" that was going to be about finding clues and typing in BASIC. I had a prototype working (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwBiJR_rj_w) but then "Else heart.break()" was released and took the wind out of my sails. Might have to go back to it though!
It might be fun to see a blog dedicated to bugfixing retro-games in their original (emulated) environments
Reminds me vaguely of Bozo's Night Out, where the goal is to get home from the pub.
I'll never understand why they ruined the perfectly good design of Windows NT 3.x by moving everything + kitchen sink into the kernel.
A bug in the clipboard functions shouldn't be a kernel exploit vector.
"Turns out"? This is clearly spelled out in the MSDN API documentation, which is all you need to understand all this. (No NotePad stack traces required, let alone ones in a proportional font).
hMem [in, optional]
A handle to the data in the specified format. This parameter can be NULL, indicating that the window provides data in the specified clipboard format (renders the format) upon request.
It's basically an advanced image filtering app ala Instagram but using "AI neural networks" to convert your images to artwork style themes.
Also TechCrunch is linking to www.sticky-ai.com but their web server isn't redirecting www properly, it just 404s, the actually working URL is: https://sticky-ai.com/
This similarly claims to use neural networks to convert images you take into stickers. For example: cropping out the background to only include the subject of the photo, making the surround background transparent, and lets you add text next to it in bubbles.
The physics (IIRC) are very similar to snow avalanches. I saw a talk once that presented evidence of one in the Indian Ocean flowed half way to the Antarctic (order 1000s of km). They have been observed to scour the canyons (such as Monterey Canyon) and are hypothesized to be set up similarly to avalanches, where the sediment depositions become unstable and slide.
A final bit of trivia: the photo of the mooring base shows a common oceanographic mooring construction material - used railroad car wheels. Big, super heavy and relatively cheap. I've never heard of them being recovered. Usually the important parts are detached and the wheels are left behind.
In terms of practicality otherwise, the exposed actuating wire looks like it would cause trouble (getting caught in places etc).
So much effort is put towards getting people back to baseline, and rightfully so. But it's the creativity of extending ourselves past baseline that gives me a child-like excitement for the future.
And that's what really gets me... how unequal the situation might have been and how oblivious I was.
So while part of me wants to defend McClure, someone who I've met and respected, I think of the women in my cohort and this article really resonates with me.
There tend to be a couple issues with this model. For one, what if the hiring company interviews the team and wants 7 of the 10? The team has to make a decision to either look for work where they can all be on the team, or abandon members.
The other issue is timing. The team members need to all be available at (or around) the same time, and they typically will have conflicting interests related to other offers or ventures they are considering.
I've had situations where a startup closed and the team wanted to stay together, and they'd ask me to approach companies on their behalf - almost like an acquihire without the company. You would think a company might pay each member a bit more for a team experienced in working together, as in theory they should be more productive more quickly.
From a platform perspective I think it would be pretty difficult to build just based on how to categorize teams and/or individuals. Any given search of the platform seems like it would yield very similar results.
It is hard to see why and how a functioning and talented team would be assembled outside those circumstances. I mean a team built to sell suggests that the members are not ideally busy solving technical problems.
I've also worked at multiple organizations now where a great trick is to hire one "influencer" and then slowly hire everyone they know.
To put it simply: The software development department of a company might bring the company $10 mil value. A consulting agency with great sales would bill them $9 mil to do the work. Individually hired developers might be paid a total of $1 mil.
If the company hires an entire team, eventually the team figures out that they bring $10 mil value and can easily negotiate their pay up to that because they coordinate together. Individual developers almost never coordinate like this.
You have to "get out of the building" (Steve Blank) and talk to your potential customers.
This kind of service might be much more valuable to huge corporations rather than startups. BigCo, Inc. is more likely to have enough cash lying around to hire an extended team all at once. Also, BigCo, Inc. is more likely to suddenly need X, Y, and Z skills to build upon recently acquired product ABC, where hiring a team with said specialty makes sense.
My uncle has been working on the same team for roughly two decades. They've migrated between companies together countless times. I think the main reason they've been able to keep the gang together is because they have a very niche specialty (within the domain of DSP hardware). This kind of service may be more valuable for finding those kinds of niche teams, rather than general BFF web devs.
We're currently accepting closed beta testers. We're a platform designed to create teams with freelancers. Our mission is to make freelancing easy as possible, through team collaboration and specialization.
This arrangement might've worked well for us if the seniors and manager could've kept the quality consistent, but they couldn't. A couple of them were really good, but most were not and problems caused by the juniors kept leaking through to us. At one point I even had to entirely scrap a project their team had worked on, and redo it all myself. (That's one case where I have evidence of being a 10x developer, at least on that project and relative to that team.)
This isn't a great argument for teams vs individuals though, because a lot of the issues we had were more to do with the cultural and logistical difficulties of outsourcing from US to India and the company we were working with, rather than the consulting model.
They later moved to California, continued living together and working on the same teams at work. Eventually, they got separate houses but still work together as a high functioning mini-team in their own shared office at a huge SV company last I heard. It probably raised eyebrows at interviews saying they wanted to work together, but they excelled technically and in the long run it seems to have been a significant career advantage that raised their productivity and possibly even rate of learning.
The impression I get is that the situation is something almost no manager would ask for or have any desire to disrupt.
> The worlds first team hiring platform.> Assemble your best colleagues today and start receiving full-time or freelance team jobs.
If your team is any good -- you're likely on Talent Acquisition's radar screen already. Relative to an actual platform to enable these deals, it would seem that the enthusiasm for "Aquihires" has piqued > > https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/acquihire/
There is some opportunity to 'disrupt' the founder model a bit where instead of a 'technical' and 'business' founder you could start with 4-5 more specialized individuals with more diverse backgrounds and probably get a lot more done.
Yes, but the cost of integrating too different cultures is also pretty steep. A group of people will tend to resist change stronger than an individual person. When you hire new people, they tend to bring what they know, arguing with things like "trust me, we used to do it that way in my previous company and it was great", now if the 10 people you hire think the same, you will have some serious cultural problems.
That said, I've seen a team (6 people) hire happen once, and it actually went well. The hired team was composed of super nice guys though and integrated very well with the existing team.
A group of humans negotiating a contract for employment is "collective bargaining", which is a no-go for business, because divide and conquer is cheaper.
Lets try it...
If you are a team good at the things in my profile or on my LinkedIn, and would be interested to become full time employees in exchange for a guaranteed global scale customer problem to solve for one of 5 largest global banks I will hire you.
If this works, well report back here that HN can be a match maker between companies and entire dev teams.
The "portal" company ended up being acquired by an American Educational group and used by a couple of brands for some time until it was finally frozen 3 years ago.
Its risky. Perhaps if it was a whole team, who didn't need to integrate any existing employees, it could work.
You really don't want to go to the step of individual interviews. The point you're making is that each member contributes in ways that have been demonstrated to have sufficient value from the team's perspective. The evidence is your portfolio of successful projects in the past. Each member's strength may not come through in interviews.
Also, part of the value to your clients is that all the recruiting, hiring and onboarding work has already been done. Saves them time & money.
You're still going to need contracts, accountability, communication overhead, and those aspects are difficult to administer if each member has their own contract. Moreover, you'll need to determine how the payments are going to be divided and how to handle payment terms, collections, etc.
It seems most reflective of a law firm... So at first glance, I'd consider setting the team up as an LLP.
Now, if you have a lucrative opportunity, and you hire this team, then either the team will figure out they can take the opportunity without you, or the opportunity is only worth slightly more than $1 million per year, so it isn't worth their time to cut you loose (since you, in effect, will be getting a "finder's fee" for finding the opportunity for the team).
In my experience "hiring a team" is closer to consulting (maybe long-term contracting) than it is to literally taking on a team of W2 contributors. It's not that it can't happen, it's just how I see it manifest itself the most often.
A group of employees being hired as a team need to 1) work well together (so that bandwidth is more than the sum of its parts), 2) complement each others' skillsets to reduce skill gaps and 3) all be more or less looking for work at the same time.
Number 3 is what's really important, but number 1 is also important because a team being hired all at once is (presumably) a team where each member is more or less equal in productivity, but not necessarily redundant. In my experience, that typically defines something closer to a consulting team than an organizational team.
If a team is truly great they are indeed more valuable than the sum of their parts so they would be selling themselves short not to shoot for a more lucrative acquisition.
Ultimate I would expect a platform such as this to either turn into an acquisition tool or be filled with mediocre teams while the good teams are acquired elsewhere.
Sounds like you want the team to start a contracting business. Build your platform for that instead.
With early stage business/startup capital is scarce.
We're hiring one off, using contractors for focused products that ship. Modules of the whole.
100% of the solicitors of team things all have the same juggling and sorting I have to do with individuals. But the cost is more. And the work expectation is more. We'll build your whole app!!
Great! Now I've spent a bunch of time and money to build expertise in my problem domain yet nobody is on MY team.
In principle the same should go for hiring, but in practice I think it's game theoretically more complicated. I've hired swaths of cohered tech teams before, but it was one by one, to allow for more individualized assessment and negotiation.
IMO rightly so - the price paid in acquihires per-employee is reflective of the fact that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts - and a team that has proven itself capable of working well and shipping is worth a lot.
The situation you're talking about sounds like one where it could make sense to contract out work to a team, outsourcing rather than hiring a team that will likely change soon after you hire them.
We told the recruiters to think of us as 'The Bipod' and that we would only go to a new job if we both were hired for the same team, at least initially.
They claimed they had done it one other time so I know it must be asked for occasionally. Long story short, my friend and I are leaving our current employer for the new employer next week. So it can be done. And I think it is nice to have some consistency in a new place of employment. It should make the transition easier for both of us.
I'm not sure exactly how you bootstrap such a thing, but would love to know....
Really says something about Microsoft's evolution if you think about it.
It's possible to do a lot of the nice IDE features in vim (and I'm sure emacs) today w/ all sorts of contortions, but a standard way to get this done would be amazing.
It instead proposes to have the language server expose the entire AST and environment that is available at each point, and have the IDE uses that for autocompletion, as this is far more powerful than what is currently doable with LSP. (Currently, the editor just transmits cursor position and content to the LSP, which then does all the highlighting, autocompletion, etc. This is not only less configurable, and less consistent, but also less usable, as often the LSP isnt able to offer as smart autocompletions)
Many IDEs, such as the JetBrains IDEA platform, do exactly this with their language plugins.
People are saying this is a coup for Edmonton, and it is. But it's also a coup for DeepMind. Having Rich Sutton, and giving him the resources to keep his best students together and working, is going to be amazing.
Despite that, it's a huge win for UofA - especially when you have names like Rich Sutton involved. I am quite excited to see the excellent growth of AI/ML expertise in Canada considering the Vector Institute  was announced recently as well!
 - http://vectorinstitute.ai/
Don't forget as well, you are a short trip to Jasper, the BC interior and all sorts of absolutely amazing places that are busy and fun 4 seasons of the year.
That is all to say, from the perspective of someone who does not live there, Edmonton is an easy place to underestimate. There are many people who would prefer it to Toronto/Montreal just for the simple fact that they can buy a house, get around easily, and be much closer to the outdoors.
Hopefully, this will provide the needed boost to the University's CS department, and particularly Edmonton's tech sector.
Bioware has offices in town and is a sponsor of the UofA CS department, so it makes sense the university research is directed towards games.
Isn't the Havre Trough rather more like Japan or the Andes (vulcanism over subducted oceanic crust) than the Mid-Atlantic ridge?