llambda

That would be useful if either of those had comments, but it doesn't look like much of a discussion occurred on either. So I think this merits a repost and I can't say I understand the purpose of commenting to simply link to no discussion. Maybe you could enlighten us as to why you do that?

Edit: I see four comments in the link you added in edit. Unfortunately I find these kinds of comments to be a distraction; they don't actually add value to the discussion and instead contribute one more thing that must be filtered and often ignored. In the cases where there is significant discussion, it can be useful. But all too often it comes across as condescending and does little to actually build upon a new discussion.

> I've heard a number of arguments over the years against a flat tax. One is that a flat tax is regressive meaning that it penalizes lower income earners by taxing them at the same rate as higher earners. But I think we are all coming to realize that the current system may be even more regressive since most wealthy people find ways to pay lower tax rates.

Let me preface this by saying, I don't necessarily disagree with the ideas presented in this article, however that quoted bit is a very weak argument. Essentially the author is arguing that because the current system is regressive that justifies moving to a flat tax rate. However this does not actually provide an argument for why a flat tax rate is less regressive, rather he only asserts that the current system is not ideal.

If you're going to sell people on the idea, you've definitely got to come up with some strong arguments for your proposal and not just arguments against the current implementation. I think such arguments exist, but this isn't a great presentation of them.

The concept looks interesting. I was sold on it and then, "backers will get a steeply marked down subscription." Wait, a what? Subscription? Sorry, you lost me. No way will I pay a subscription fee to use an email program. Apart from that, as a standalone app, it sounds compelling.

Yes you're right, I actually didn't see that... What's going on?

Why was my submission killed? --> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491539

Edit: incidentally, because this submission was made after my submission, when I saw it I flagged it thinking it was a dupe. Now it seems I've lost the ability to flag entirely. :(

> Clearly you didn't "focus only on your strengths". You identified a weakness - no knowledge of the mechanics of vehicles, and acted to fix it.

Except you're missing his point, OP cared about that particular domain, so he got better at it whereas he doesn't care about schmoozing with VCs.

Further, OP contests the idea that you necessarily must address your weaknesses, i.e. the perpetual selling point of self-help, on the basis that you will then be forced to ignore your strengths.

> The 10,000 hour thing seems pretty valid.

It's valid if it's understood: it shouldn't be taken to mean, "Randomly press keys on a keyboard for ten-thousand hours and you'll produce masterful code" but rather "work passionately and carefully for ten-thousand hours, learn from the masters, seek to emulate and extend their genius, and after ten-thousand hours you might be getting somewhere".

Simply trying hard isn't enough. You have to be smart about how you try. That's what I was getting at with that.

I agree, the snake oil is selling this idea that you /must/ improve your weaknesses or you're invalidated.

On your last point: exactly. The takeaway is that it was a rather obvious point to make: people who are gifted in in a multivariate of disciplines will thrive; I doubt many will dispute that.

> Furthermore, I don't want experience in that, because I recognize that I'm far better off focusing on my strengths than my weaknesses (something eschewed by the self-improvement crowd, but a well-demonstrated fact).

Exactly right. The self-help "guru" scene is based on very little fact (or should I say, based heavily on cherry-picked facts) and instead focuses on "mind over matter", e.g. if you just try harder you'll get it sooner or later (and be damned good!). Absolute snake oil.

> This whole thing stinks of confirmation bias to me.

That's all self-help has ever been: one guy says he has a process, a method, another guy agrees that the first guy was on to something, but he has a slightly different remix that maximizes its effect. Rarely is this stuff based on actual research or science.

Further, I don't really think pg's point was that you can somehow follow a guide to resourcefulness and become resourceful, rather he was making an observation about the quality of "resourcefulness" in some founders, i.e. the founders that ended up being most capable and noting that such people who have said aptitude need but a word to get going. I don't dispute that; I have no experience with it. But I do dispute the notion that you can come up with some method that will make me magically better and base it on nothing but conjecture and confirmation bias.

Edit: Consider this, after ten-thousand hours of practice you might master some craft: but the implication isn't that I can sit idly at my computer, hitting the keys here and there and then after some set amount of time I've magically mastered it. No. Mastery only comes after countless hours, days, weeks, months, years, even decades of passionate and careful dedication; no guide is going to make you suddenly better at something you lacked talent in without significant investment. And well, once you're investing passion and time, what do you need some guide for?

I find these sorts of "n steps to greatness" guides to be suspect: sure, some of this advice is useful but a lot of it is simply common sense and little of it expands upon the original essays it cites; at worst it boils down to a set of platitudes that may or may not benefit you given the actual context.

The problem here is there's no correct way for everyone and by creating a list of potential actions people may be led to think they're just not capable when in fact what they should be doing is finding a path that works for them and not caring what some guy on the Internet claims is the right way of doing things.

For instance, telling someone to be assertive or to keep trying until it works is a specious claim; it's not incorrect all the time of course, but often people miss because they just don't get the social context they find themselves in, not because they haven't tried enough times. If your attitude is, "I'll do this until it works" you risk being reflective and trying to decipher the cause of failure.

Who knows, this might be an exact fit for some people. But for others, I would steer clear and find your own path to greatness, sans self-help gurus.

> Postponed is awfully vague.

Right. Even if these bills are tabled indefinitely, to be clear, the government will continue to pursue legislation that seeks to control "piracy" (i.e. beyond DMCA) as the perception currently is it's out of control.

Once these bills are defeated, those who oppose them need to go on the offensive and start educating Congress; lobbying isn't pretty but those who rally around Google et. al ought to start a counteroffensive in the form of a lobby as soon as possible to make a clear case for their cause and help Congress realize why these bills are so flawed.

Maddox is a polemicist. He actively enjoys and cultivates such a persona and to what end? It seems to me his goal is to play devil's advocate as a kind of link bait. What I've seen of his work is pointedly provocative in an intentionally non-PC way. However I don't feel that simply being clever, and holding points of view that are seemingly diametrically opposed to the mainstream, is actually an effective way to effect change.

For instance, in this particular article, Maddox claims that we need a "spark to light the lazy tinder". There is here an implicated false dichotomy where either some draconian legislation passes, e.g. SOPA, and everyone "wakes up" or no other efforts will prove progressive. I don't buy it. In fact, I don't buy any argument that makes the claim that due to the current state of political economy we are unable to see the kinds of changes we want without total and complete revolution. I feel it's absurd to dismiss efforts such as yesterday's which net results that include some 13 new senators opposing the bills.

I'm wondering how it's technically possible for a submission with over 500 up-votes to be flagged to the point of being pushed off the front page; interestingly, it was not a gradual departure, as you'd expect, but rather it seemed to move instantly, from the top spot, to number 33 or 34, on the second page.

I think it's terribly important that it be possible for the community to reflect, critically: SOPA is a serious issue, one we should all be concerned about, and more importantly taking action against. However, there is a point where it becomes an echo chamber, where we are preaching to the choir. Having nearly every submission be yet another "X is blacked out" does not necessarily correlate to communicating to our lawmakers that we do not want this legislation to pass.

Clearly this subtle, yet provocative submission's intent to communicate such a critique was understood by a number of people. I'm still unsure how it ended up bumped so quickly, but whatever the case, I hope the point wasn't entirely lost on those of you who didn't appreciate it.

Ah what sad news! I really enjoyed using this service and although I never found a project through it this was almost certainly due to the fact I wasn't able to take on new projects during the time I was subscribed to it. However there were many projects that looked interesting and worthwhile. I'm sorry to see it go.

SEEKING WORK: remote, NYC on-site possible

Hello!

I'm a Python hacker. I generally do web development. I'm always interested in new projects. Please feel free to peruse my GitHub: https://github.com/maxcountryman

As a web developer I can do fullstack implementations: frontend, backend, deployment, maintenance and so forth.

Please don't hesitate to email: maxc@me.com

> Let me say, though, that I absolutely respect your privacy and have no intention of looking at your data. It's as private as you want it to be. I'm also happy to put this in the TOS.

OP's issue wasn't so much privacy as it was permanency, as I read it. So using Gmail, I can rest assured that in five year's time my documents will still be around, just as they are today. Whereas with a new service, who's to say what lies in store for it? What if you pivot? What if you're acquired? Unfortunately a service like Gmail wins in this context.

First, congratulations!

The site looks good and the product seems interesting and useful.

Unfortunately, you're getting hit hard with HN traffic being number one on the front page currently and thus things are slow.

However I was able to load the index page and watch the introductory video.

One thing that bothers me is I clicked on your Terms of Service link and was prompted to login: you might want to consider making as much available to logged out users as possible and esp things like terms of service which I may want or even need to read before signing up.

Otherwise, best of luck!

> My god.. the productive output of Silicon Valley is going to triple on the 18th!

Personally I'll be blacking out my productivity as a show of solidarity.

All joking aside, I actually think it would be difficult to maintain the rhythm, if you know what I mean, without my favorite social news site on one monitor. On the other hand, it might give the browser's refresh button a much needed break...

> The next-lowest-score frontpage article at the moment is 14pts.

Ranking is in part based on the time since the submission was made fwiw.

Blacking out Google is one thing and something that I hope happens if all else fails. Now I'm sure blacking out Reddit will at least get a certain demographic in the U.S. to notice, but isn't this the same demographic that is already working to remove certain members of Congress for their support of SOPA? So my question: what kind of impact will this have? Certainly there won't be too many Congress members worked up over a blacked out Reddit...

Sometimes it misses, although in some cases I think it might be related to age: after a certain time it's fun to revisit and given that the base changes no doubt some current readers weren't around when it was last posted.

> Do I really want my Internet search engine to "know me"?

In a perfect world, where your personal information couldn't be used against you or for someone else's gain, why not? But we don't live in that perfect world. I agree, this kind of thing is scary. Between Google's increasingly lame results (yes I realize this is an attempt to curb that issue) and the idea that Google is and will become increasingly aggressive about knowing who I am, I feel like it's time for me to give up Google.

You should probably email. Last time I had a similar issue that was the response.

I don't have a citation for this, so please take it with a grain of salt, but according to my Swedish friend, this movement does not legalize file sharing and those purporting to be members of the movement won't be covered for the sake of being members. In other words, it doesn't really do anything to protect its members from file sharing laws.

I think it can be tricky. We know the process doesn't always work. Some companies, e.g. Google, believe that it's better to adhere to a tough hiring process and reject most people even if a certain number of those people who are rejected may be brilliant engineers. But what I think is important to remember is that the goal is to hire the right person for the job. The hiring process you use may or may not be an effective and efficient means of finding that person. But certainly having a very narrow view, say by having a very strong focus on the process and little else, is a sure way to miss the right person at least some of the time.

tl;dr - He won't hire you because he has a hyper-focus on the process of the interview rather than the process of finding a suitable individual for the opening. His attitude can be summed up in this one line, "Most people looking for jobs don't deserve them."

Great list.

Related side note, I was contacted today by who I can only guess was the same person, asking how to participate on HN. I sent them an email but didn't hear back. I suppose I can assume they were busy contacting a large set of users. Not that there's any harm in that. I hope they find this list instructive!

This can still be broken down into an hourly rate even if you present it to the client as a daily or weekly rate.

> Learning.

Exactly. And just to expand on this a bit, the process and resulting value of an experience should not be discounted. This is the foci of experiential learning. I can only speak for myself here, but the way I've learned best has always been by getting into something and doing it! Not always successfully, but rarely without gaining some kind of knowledge in the process. Importantly, for me, an important aspect of this has always been because it was "cool" to me. It it weren't...I'd probably lose my focus or quickly get bored.

> Do you seriously expect me or any other serious programmer in a business environment sorting a million integers in a million different ways?

Well my apologies for not immediately understanding your specific situation... I can assure you I meant it as a kind suggestion.

Perhaps you could look at Clojure In Action[1]? It's supposed to be a pragmatic introduction for people with some existing programming experience. From the Amazon page, "is a hands-on tutorial for the working programmer who has written code in a language like Java or Ruby, but has no prior experience with Lisp."

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Clojure-Action-Amit-Rathore/dp/1935182...

> I am interested in learning clojure. Unfortunately the learning material online is very scanty.

You might give 4Clojure a try[1]. It's a series of programming problems that in the process of challenging you attempt to teach you the syntax and usage. It starts off very basic so even if you know no programming at all it may still be useful.

[1] https://www.4clojure.com/