credo

Unfortunately, American culture (and many cultures around the world) objectify women and value them based on their looks. So Google's search results may just be a true reflection of what people are interested in looking at. Perhaps Bing's algorithms aren't as good as Google's algorithms in estimating what people might be more interested in.

To be clear, I didn't intend my statement as a feminist critique of society (though personally I would agree with this feminist critique). I just used this example as a roundabout way of defending Google's algorithm and saying that Google gives us the search results we deserve (and ask for) and not the search results that (from Auerback's perspective and mine) we should probably be more interested in.

However, I think it is worth pointing out that the "rice theory" in the virginia.edu post isn't particularly new.

In 'Outliers' (which came out six years ago) Gladwell writes extensively about the "rice theory" (and Gladwell may have relied on prior research by other folks)

He writes about rice farmers in southern China who value hard work, co-operation with each other, planning etc and attributes that to the "rice theory"

Gladwell also contrasts these rice farmers with European farmers. Chinese farmers typically were entrepreneurial, but European peasants were generally low-paid slaves/workers of some aristocratic landlord.

He also contrasts them with French farmers who did virtually nothing in winter, Russians who came up with proverbs like "If God doesn't bring it, the earth will not give it" etc.

What I find more interesting is something that you haven't mentioned. Yesterday, the same blog post was submitted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7484234 ) followed by an email request to thousands of people asking for an upvote. That post seems to only have 9 upvotes (and pg's anti-gaming algorithm may have played a role in it)

However, today, the post was re-submitted and it already has 23 points in just around an hour. So they've beaten pg's anti-duplicate-submission code (and perhaps his anti-gaming code as well)

In any case, this is a big win for the conservative movement/establishment in the US. If the workers had voted to unionize and if the (Republican led) government had penalized Volkwagen (as they threatened), it would have been interesting to see whether Volkswagen might moved to a less union-unfriendly state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/business/automaker-gives-i... has some additional details.

Yes, you probably haven't lost any users over expired links

However, I think you have inconvenienced a lot of users through the expired links. Sometimes, I think it is good to spend a little bit of effort on helping a large number of users.

I'm assuming among readers (who attempt to go past page-1), an overwhelming majority has hit this problem multiple times (and lost time because of this problem)

However, I find it astonishing that so many people (most of them sharing my citizenship) can be so oblivious to some of the mind-boggling arrogant hypocrisy going around.

Recently, there was a news report on "diplomatic immunity" for an "information management officer" in the US embassy in Kenya. This American man was speeding in his SUV. He crossed the middle-line and crashed into another vehicle killing one man and injuring many more.

This wasn't just the garden-variety "hit and run" accident we see in America. This man didn't just flee the scene, he fled Kenya (with US government help) and the US government is asserting "diplomatic immunity".

Can any critic of India seriously argue that it is OK for the US to assert diplomatic immunity and spirit this "information management officer" out of the country - even though he killed one innocent man (in this case, a father of three) with his reckless driving.

Interesting post with a lot of good advice based on the philosophy described above.

I also think that this sales philosophy should have a qualifier around it.

It is important for any salesperson to seriously consider the (potential) customer's objection objectively. Nuking the objection shouldn't be the primary goal and it shouldn't come at the expense of the customer's interests.

In some cases, it is quite likely that the customer's objection isn't something that must be nuked. In fact, I'd even go further and say that (in some cases) a good salesperson should think of potential reasons why a product may be inappropriate (e.g. little value, too risky, too expensive etc.) for a certain customer. IOW in some circumstances, walking away from a sale (based on a customer's objection) might be the right thing to do.

This post is on page 3 and ranked 75. it says "59 points by bluekitten 2 hours ago"

Meanwhile on page 1, the number 21 item says "35 points by cromulent 4 hours ago" and the number-29 item says "64 points by AndrewDucker 8 hours ago"

Has any research been done to establish whether soy has been harmful in countries where they've been eating it for generations ?

I'd also be curious to know whether the alleged "harmful" effect observed in soy-based products (like soymilk etc.) has also been observed in plain soybeans.

You're mistaken in your analogy.

Regardless of what some people thought they "knew", Microsoft was always in the paid-software business. Microsoft was formed in 1975 and that year, their revenue was $16,000. In 1977 it was $381K (with net income of $112K). 3 years after formation, Microsoft's revenue was $1.3M. Microsoft's business plan was based on selling software and they did that from the beginning.

Snapchat was formed around 3 years ago. At this "equivalent stage", they seem to have zero revenue. It also seems like they are holding out for a better purchase-offer. They seem to be on the familiar VC-guided route of "selling a company and its users" as opposed to the old-fashioned route of "selling a software product/service".

In general, I don't think you can equate the growth strategy/prospects of an independent/self-sufficient company that sells software-products with a company that wishes to sell itself.

At best, your comment is a naive and ignorant take on Murdoch and China.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/world/asia/26murdoch.html?... for how Murdoch wooed Chinese leaders, how his Star TV man tried to stop the BBC from showing a Tiannamen Square video and how they ultimately dropped the BBC from Star TV's Chinese programming.

On one hand, some courageous Chinese men and women risk everything for freedom and fight their government. On the other hand, it is sad to see these rich American businessmen collaborate with the Chinese autocrats (even though these American businessmen don't need to fear torture etc and the only risk they run is losing some extra money by not being to conduct business in China)

I've been on HN for much longer than your 2-month old account and (based on the ranking of other "Ask HN" and "Show HN" posts I've seen), I suspect that you're speculating and that your assertion is incorrect.

The huge inconsistency between points and ranking happen on a large number of Microsoft-related posts and almost all of them point to external websites.

[update:Reply to LukeShu] Thanks LukeShu, it is good to know how ranking is implemented.

Btw I didn't question whether the absence of URLs reduced the ranking or not. My question was whether the absence of URLs was the only reason (or at least the primary reason) for the push-down of this specific post.

It seems clear that the .4 multiplication rule could not have been the only reason.

As per the .4 multiplication rule, the post with 290 points should have been downgraded to 116 points. Yet, 4 hours after submission, it was at #8. The #2 post only had 90 points and had been submitted 5 hours earlier. So it seems like the push-down was partly caused both by the 0.4 rule and partly by other factors.

Anyway, I appreciate your investigation. In spite of being on HN for the past few years, I never knew that posts without a URL, got hit by this 0.4 rule.

Meanwhile the #2 item was submitted 5 hours and it only has 90 points.

IMO anyone who observes HN reaction to any Microsoft topic (that isn't a virulently anti-Microsoft submission) knows that these topics will get pushed down to the back pages. In some cases, the reason may be flagging, in other cases, it may be the flamewar reason (that pg cites above)

Regardless of the reasoning, it is unfortunate that pg is unwilling to admit that this is a problem (and unfortunately, he does also reflect the thinking of most HNers). Fwiw in terms of disclosure, I was an SDE, then dev-lead at Microsoft in the 90s/00s and dev-manager for a few years later on, but I left the company in 2007 and since then, I've been running the company I founded.

It is quite likely that Pogue's reviews (e.g. great review of Flickr changes) were honest reviews and that he wasn't trying to curry favor with prospective future employers.

However, I hope that this job offer leads to more thoughts on conflicts of interest and perhaps requirements (from NYT etc) regarding journalists reviewing companies from whom they might accept job offers

This does help defragment Android from a Google (developed) app perspective.

However, it doesn't do anything for 3rd-party developers. It doesn't do anything for regular consumers who wish to upgrade their 2.3.3 phones or 4.1 phones to the latest version of Android. So Google has a long way to go before they really defragment Android.

1. At best, pg badly miscommunicated what he was trying to say. He could have just said something like 'founders who cannot communicate well' or 'founders who can't be understood' etc. - but he chose specifically to refer to "strong foreign accents".

Arguably, some Americans might find it easier to understand some foreign accents (strong British accents, some Indian accents etc) than some American accents (e.g. some rural southern accents). More to the point, some folks with foreign accents can speak much better English and articulate their ideas (and make themselves understood) much better than many people speaking in a mainstream American accent. However, pg chose to use the "strong foreign accent" criterion instead of the more correct "communicate well" criterion.

2. imo a stubborn refusal to acknowledge mistakes/errors is a big weakness and pg is demonstrating that weakness with passive-aggressive pushbacks like the one on Twitter "Don't say things people want to misunderstand."

Sorry, I think pg's statement was either blatantly wrong or badly expressed/communicated, but that doesn't amount to me being a part of the alleged "looking-for-reasons-to-be-offended patrol" that one of the commenters below talks about. pg (and his defenders on hn) will be better served by trying to understand the criticism instead of making up false motives for the critics of his statement.

<edit> Ten minutes after I posted the comment, it was at 3 points. Thirty minutes later, it was at ZERO points, one hour later at -1 :) In addition to showing the net-points for each comment, I wish HN also showed the total number of upvotes and downvotes each comment receives.

Two points

1. Yes, most startups failed in 1999 and most startups are failing now. This isn't unexpected. Anytime, there is a boom in startups, most of them are going to fail.

If the first 10 startups succeed there will be 100 more. If the first million startups succeed, there will be 10 million more. Ultimately, most of them will fail.

2. imo Andrew is mistaken in assuming that the failures are due to startups having a "super high bar for initial quality in their version 1".

If anything, I'd say that the quality of many apps is too low, Many of the big-name apps are often unstable and crash (not just in the V1 version, but in later versions as well)

He seems to suggest the top-lists should be replaced by a list of apps that Apple classifies as "great software". However, Apple already shows a list of featured apps and this list already has a huge impact on app rankings (and IMO Apple will never be able to create a perfect and comprehensive list)

From my experience, I'd say that removing the top-lists will hurt the ecosystem (most users as well as many developers). For example, one of our iPad apps was #1 in the Finance category for six weeks. The media first mentioned this app several days after it became #1. Apple also featured the app a few days after the app became #1 (the app was never priced at the lowest price tiers). The app got initial traction organically and the #1 ranking helped it get even more traction.

It isn't realistic to expect Apple to be able to pick a list of "great apps". Following up on my example, we launched a new version of the iPad app a couple of weeks ago, but Apple isn't featuring it on the "new and noteworthy" list even though the app has hundreds of reviews with 2/3 of them being 5-star reviews and another 1/4 being 4-star reviews

Relying solely on Apple's featured list and on media-connections or advertisements may work for one class of developers, but for many other developers, the (category-specific) top-lists are helpful. I also think that the top-lists are helpful for users. Removing the list isn't going to make it any more easy for users to search through a million apps in the app store.

Instagram was a great product, Magazine a good follow-up.

It is marginally interesting that Magazine ownership is being transferred to Marco's partner, but I don't understand why that merits the #1 ranking on HN :)

However, it should be troubling that

1. Deception is considered excusable and that Companies care little about ethics and break the spirit of tax laws (if not the letter).

Redirecting US profits or European profits to other unrelated countries (on paper) and then claiming tax exemption clearly indicates deception. If they made their money in the US and claim that all of this money belongs to a subsidiary in Bermuda, that should be a matter of concern to everyone (regardless of whether this deception is legal or not)

2. It is true that many companies indulge in this type of deception and defend it as "legal" Often, it is the companies (through their lobbyists) who created these legalities. So it is disingenuous to defend their practices as legal. Obviously, Microsoft, Google and other large companies do the same (or similar) things. However, that doesn't do much to dispel the fact that each company engages in deception.

1. The WSJ report noted that Apple was concerned that " AppGratis was pushing a business model that appeared to favor developers with the financial means to pay for exposure." Simon hasn't addressed this point. Do they make paid recommendations ?

If they do make app-recommendations based on payments, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to ban them. As an iOS (and Android) developer, I personally think that paid-recommendations are bad for the ecosystem (though I'm sure that some giant shops paying for recommendations may disagree). At the least, I think users of AppGratis should be told if the recommendations are "paid for".

2. Simon's discussion of rule 5.6 doesn't really address the problem. Rule 5.6 says "Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind."

Simon counters by saying that they only send one notification per day and that users opt-in. However, neither claim refutes the fact that they''re violating rule 5.6. All iOS push-notifications are opt-in anyway. Rule 5.6 says 'no advertisement , no promotions,.... no direct marketing'. It doesn't make exceptions for apps that only send one notification per day. Now Simon could argue that Rule 5.6 is bad for the user and that push-notification-advertisements/promotions are good. That may be a debatable point. However, it is clear that his claims do nothing to counter the fact that AppGratis violates Rule 5.6 (as it is written)

For several years, Fred Wilson has written that "carried interest" should be taxed as ordinary income. For instance, see http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/05/why-taxing-carried-interest-... (and my guess is that Fred Wilson earns more carried-interest-income than Mike Arrington whose biggest payout was probably the sale of TechCrunch.)

I'm sure that many other investors (e.g Nick Hanauer, here in Seattle) have the same (or more progressive) positions

Btw on some of the other comments ...this fiscal deal wasn't about cutting loopholes. It covered a lot of other more-urgent stuff. There is no way they could have tackled less-urgent stuff in this bill.

However, in the past, Obama has called for cutting loopholes and he stressed that point in his speech tonight. Last year, in October, Romney had also stressed the need to cut loopholes. Cutting loopholes is very hard because each loophole has a strong lobby behind it, but I hope the two parties are able to agree on cutting some of these outrageous loopholes.

That is the party-line.

However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality.

The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war - but that was armed rebellion by the state "governments" and it was a war to defend the right to slavery. (yes, I know that some people describe it as the "war of northern aggression")

MLK talked about the long arc of history bending towards justice and that has undoubtedly been true in America. Today, native Americans cannot be massacred or driven into reservations, blacks cannot be enslaved to work in plantations, women have the right to vote and many more rights that were denied to them in previous centuries, gays have the right to not be arrested for being gay, Japanese-Americans have the right to not be arrested solely based on their ethnicity etc.

In all of these cases, freedom has expanded far beyond what America had in previous centuries. However, I think it is safe to assert that the 2nd amendment was absolutely irrelevant (in any positive way) in the expansion of any of these freedoms.

Erick Erickson makes the suggestion more strongly. He points to the "Ace of Spades" post and uses it to reject the possibility that the election was a defeat for "conservatism". In http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/09/the-only-thing-you-need-t... he says that "the biggest problem the Republicans had on Tuesday night was not demographics, but turnout operations."

The post on Breitbart makes a similar suggestion and leads with "As Republicans try to explain their Election Day losses in terms of policy, tactics, and strategy, one factor is emerging as the essential difference between the Obama and Romney campaigns on November 6: the absolute failure of Romney’s get-out-the-vote effort, which underperformed even John McCain’s lackluster 2008 turnout. One culprit appears to be “Orca,” the Romney’s massive technology effort, which failed completely."

Orca is just the latest reason I've heard, previous theories (from staunch conservatives) can be best summarized by what I heard Charles Krauthammer say on Fox News (on election day). He dismissed the defeat by describing Romney as a "northeastern liberal".

[edit] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/11... “I’m very surprised, as digital guy, about the pushback people are getting” over Orca, Moffatt said. “This didn’t materially change the course of the election.”

You're neglecting to mention one important fact. Open Source often relies on subsidies and handouts from companies/organizations(that use open-source software to compete with (and attack) software companies that created the original software product). Sun is a good example that comes to mind here

In case of Android, Google is an ad company and don't need to earn money by selling mobile OS software.

I have had Android phones since the G1 (and wrote a prototype Android app long before the first Android phone (G1) was in the market). However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that Google's business model (free software that obtains user information and monetizes users through ads) is very different from the business model of companies like Microsoft and Apple.

If you don't plan on cutting the feature for ever, perhaps you could consider an alternative approach of limiting the validity of the URLs to the first visit and also removing the email-id (and other PII data) of the user from the URL.

It is ironic that Microsoft is trying to promote a green and caring image of itself, while arrogantly employing these wasteful tactics.

Some people create valuable products, write valuable posts, but feel the need to cheat. Some others may write not-so-valuable posts, but they will not cheat.

Of course, the ideal HN scenario is for people to write great posts, not cheat and have those posts on the front page. Unfortunately, voting rings make that a bit more difficult than it should be.