alfredallan1

Even in software, the primary “advantage” of youth seems to be able to work much longer hours.

But from my own experience, I wonder how much of those long hours are truly productive. At least in my own case, i often observe that the quality of the work I do early morning when I’m fresh is significantly better than what I do late at night, and that the late-night job is more liable to contain subtle bugs, thus often needing to be “polished” in the morning again. Additionally what I can finish in the last 4 hours at night (after a full days work) I can easily do in about 2 hours in the morning. So while there’s an egocentric feeling of satisfaction of wrapping something up before going to bed, from a pure productivity perspective I find it better to call it quits at a decent hour and take a fresh look in the morning.

So recently, I’ve started to do things in a way that things that need to be created from scratch, or otherwise need more mental/intellectual involvement, I do them while I’m fresh, and reserve the more mundane things or interpersonal tasks (like meetings, etc.) for the later part of the day when I’m slightly tired. I wonder if any of this resonates with other peoples’ experiences.

Here’s a link to a pdf I just made from the browser (so no table of contents in the sidebar or other fanciness):

https://www.filedropper.com/foundertoceomattsbookforstartups...

PS: the link doesn’t work without cookies or in anon mode.

That’s one of the most valid ideas I’ve heard - define private data as personal property.

When one looks deeper into laws like GDPR and this one, at the heart of it lies the fact that a company cannot do as it pleases with an individual’s data without said individuals consent. But given the nature of the legislation, it is not too hard for a company to simply bypass it in ways that adhere to the letter of the law but not the spirit.

If instead there were laws that defined private data as the personal property of the respective individual, the need for all this convoluted legislation would be rendered moot, since such a law would open the grounds for a variety of class action lawsuits against companies perceived to be egregiously abusive. The case law itself would set numerous precedents and eliminate the need for varied “interpretations” of one piece of legislation. IMO, this is what we should be pushing for, not more GDPR-clones which can be watered down by lobbyists.

That somehow seems like a tenuous argument, especially when talking about tech companies, when one looks at examples like Satya Nadella (MS) and Sundar Pichai (Google) who’re both Asian - and 1st generation at that. In the case of FMCG type companies, I’d actually agree with you, but in tech the evidence indicates otherwise.

I thought it was German Shepherd Dog - highly focussed canines.

They will now that the US has taken the lead.

My analogy was based on means, not ends. GS split investment banking ops from consumer banking. Similarly something could separate the consumer data business from the telco/infrastructure business.

But sure, GDPR works just as well; even better perhaps. Although GOOD LUCK getting something like that to pass through US legislature. Especially when the legislative has already allowed ISPs to freely trade in consumer traffic (meta)data. You can find a preliminary coverage here https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/28/house-vote-sj-34-isp-regul...

But indeed, I do agree that a GDPR-clone is overdue in the US. While I hope it comes to fruition, I also hope it isn’t hopelessly bastardized and rendered toothless by the lobbyist lot.

Thanks for raising that point. I skipped a lot of detail and nuance since I really didn’t want to write an essay.

It is true that trade deficits are calculated on full value, not the “value-added”. Even with this distinction the argument still holds. E.g. in 2014, the "value added" trade deficit was USD 200 Billion while the official “full” value was USD 315 Billion. So it’s not like a tiny fraction, but rather a significant portion. This is one of the reasons people still use the old system - it is inaccurate but not at all grossly misleading (and inveting a new “global” system is really painful). This difference of USD 200 Billion is still too large for the US to willingly accept.

Here’s a link in case you wanna check a couple of figures. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-18/big-u-s-c...

You’re right that everyone suffers. The question in a “war” is who can handle the most losses/suffering before routing. The evidence seems to suggest that the Chinese market is already tanking, with the US barely having taken a first few shots. I see minimal impact, if any, on US markets (there are of course localized pockets of suffering, but we’re talking about the whole picture).

So this is more about taking a long term view. When the status quo (pre-Trump-tariffs) continues, the US continues to rack up a deficit, loses a lot of manufacturing expertise, develops a significant dependency on China, while China continues to innovate and raise its standard of living. Of course the US remains engaged in more higher level work, but rampant IP theft renders a large part of it moot, when it can simply be stolen. So a few decades from now, the US is only slightly above its current position while China has advanced considerably. Even better, with China’s large population, and emphasis on STEM, they are better positioned for the next many decades, compared to the US. Now combine that with China’s (or any large power’s) willingness to throw its weight around, and within a century it is not too hard to visualize the US as a secondary power to China.

China (or anyone else for that matter) will continue to steal IP as long as they can get away with it. It’d be stupid not to. The point of this is to really force them to come to the table and come to terms that are amenable to the US. It is trivial to issue a “statement” condemning IP theft, but entirely another matter to take actual steps to prevent it. The ultimate goal of US (or any country’s) foreign policy is to maintain long term geopolitical advantage. Continuation of the status quo did not seem like the most realistic path to doing that, so they’re fighting it.

From a trade perspective, a rising deficit means the US pays for Chinese goods, while barely getting paid for its products. The US would really like to sell more than it buys. This cannot happen when the Chinese have tariffs on just about everything, in addition to making it nigh impossible for foreign firms to operate on their soil. This state of affairs works strongly to their advantage, so they have no reason to do it differently. The US hopes that these (and future) tariffs will convince the Chinese to be more open to US products and companies in mainland China.

There ought to be some sort of regulation preventing this sort of thing - like the Glass-Steagall Act in banking that mandated separation of investment banking and commercial banking operations.

Nor any Asian country whose natives are perceived in the West as being meek/humble or whatever else.

It is just that most immigrants (in the last 3-4 decades) to the US happen to be a self selected group meeting certain stringent criteria of acheivement in one area, which left, in most cases, little room for a “broader” personality, i.e. high acheiving STEM grads.

You’re conflating two different things - 1) justification and 2) explanation, and with that misinterpreting the gist of my post.

Just because it has a valid explanation doesn’t mean it is just, nor that it should continue. I was trying to give one possible background for why things are they way they are - not the way they should be.

The situation is starting to change, but it simply cannot happen overnight, the best case scenario for sustainable change is a couple of generations of sustained effort from all sides. Look at how the Italian and Irish immigrants went from pariahs to normal. The Chinese have gone from manual labor to solid middle class in 2-3 generations.

And I’d be happy to submit whatever kind of explanation I think might fit the facts of any situation, regardless of group.

Oh yeah… I concur. That holds true even though the former be lesser in magnitude.

You’re starting to touch the issue, but IMO, not quite. Allow me to present a somewhat controversial approach.

Considering the US only: at the risk of extreme and borderline stereotypical generalizations - if one looks at the history of immigration into the country - the Asian immigrants have largely consisted of Chinese laborers around the gold rush, Indian truck drivers and motel/cornershop owners in the early - mid 1900’s. They came to make a living in somewhat decent conditions. Both lines of work require you to be reasonably honest, keep your head down and do the job. It can be presumed these were the values these Asian parents inculcated into their children - who saw the pathway to their version of the American dream as a relatively low risk SME. The Asian immigrants since the 1960s have been largely STEM people - academic high performers, given the nature of university admissions and the visa process. STEM high performers - as individuals, and presumably as parents too, tend to be intelligent but sensible (risk-rational), belive in very hard work, tend not to oversocialize, to not brag a whole lot, and tend to prioritize knowledge/lifestyle over blind ambition and obscene wealth. None of those traits are directly conducive to being a top exec, but rather to a job like VP - engg.

An excellent case in point - as another commenter also mentioned, if you go to Asian cities, you’ll find exactly the sort of “persona” you’d find in a typical Western exec, often exaggerated to an even higher level. But that persona hasn’t made it to US shores, instead choosing to make it big in their own place.

In contrast, many of the earliest “white” immigrants came here first for ideological reasons, and later driven by ambitions of striking it big, and often by delusions of grandeur, and were significantly less risk-averse than either groups of Asian immigrants I mentioned earlier. Of course there were plenty of regular folks too.

So I would submit that instead of looking at just Asians/whites making it to top exec, one should look at 1) professional backgrounds of the parents of top execs, 2) fraction of those with highest academic/test scores making it to top exec. Of course, to be a successful top exec, the need for “top” academic scores is outweighed by a host of other qualifications. Asians in whom these “other” qualifications are found in ample measure often do make it big in their home countries, but might make terrible immigrants to the US.

The opinion of one HN’er is that it is definitively a gray area. So whether or not you’re sued for it depends on if someone resourceful has a reason to sue you (e.g. LinkedIn vs HiQ); in most other cases, I don’t think anybody really cares.

There was an earlier case (I don’t recall the details) about scraping violating copyright, which might be a valid defense - that you’re engaged in unauthorized “copying” the (protected) source code (of the webpage), albeit momentarily, into your computer’s memory while your script processes it to extract the relevant contents. So even though it might be fine to copy the image/data/whatever else, you have no right to copy source code - which is certainly protected by copyright (your browser processing the same page is something the copyright owner explicitly allows, by virtue of making it available on the web). By that same token, it can also be considered illegal to save webpages on your harddisk. But do refer to the last sentence in my earlier paragraph.

The LinkedIn vs HiQ case is currently being appealed in the (court of appeals for the) 9th Circuit. Regardless of which way it rules, the decision of the 9th circuit only applies in its the states under its jurisdiction (maybe as a precedent in others, but it won’t be binding). It can still go to Supreme Court, depending on how determined the parties are.

There was a ruling in a different (but somewhat related case) in Jan 2018 that violating the ToS is not a crime https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/ninth-circuit-doubles-... To quote: “[T]aking data using a method prohibited by the applicable terms of use”— i.e., scraping — “when the taking itself generally is permitted, does not violate” the state computer crime laws”.

There was a very long discussion on HN about scraping over a year back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13884357

Curious question: what makes/made more money?

Not immediately, no. 10 years back, Duracell seemed a very strong brand. All it is going to take for LVMH, etc. to start getting replaced is a new generation of online shoppers seeing Amazon house brands right next to these and subconsciously associating them together as brands of equal value.

I think you might have nailed one of the more fundamental problems in US healthcare.

Carry a pack of your favorite poison at all times. With practice, you can calibrate the amount you need to consume to acheive a desired iq level. Anytime you feel you’re getting smarter, take a dose of the magic potion. Of course, you’ll need to practice to attain perfection in basic motor skills at a slight level of inebriation, but that’s quite doable.

Oh no, I never said or meant that current bad practices are justified based on past precedents.

Just that blaming the incumbent while ignoring identical practices by the predecessor seems borderline biased reporting by the media. Not that the current situation shouldn’t be highlighted - it most certainly should be. But giving the impression that it is a new development (by ignoring the fact that it isn’t) seems politically motivated - just because of the extant political tensions and divisive climate.

I’m not sure past wrongs can indeed be redressed except notionally, by official apology, but at the very least future wrongs ought to be prevented.

It is indeed true that selfish motives take precedence - in the minds/deliberations of those that stand to profit. But isn’t a govt formed of the elected representatives, who are in office just to represent the interests of the commons?

Yes, this is both generally relevant, but specifically OT.

Hope the mods split it off.

There is indeed a performative aspect to a broad discussion, but it offers the advantage of raising broad based issues that just might not occur to an individual in a limited closed session.

While HN is not immune to the cons of online communities, I feel a generally civil tone, free of political snark, or heavy biases can be maintained.

Yes, it is happening now. The point is that it was also happening under Obama (I don’t know the scale of it though), so it is unfair to blame just the Donald for it, while Barry gets a free pass. At least Trump did reverse his stance on splitting families up, as a token, if nothing more.

I’m less liberal than many, but I’m curious how the conservative movement feels issues like climate change and clean oceans and clean air, or even net neutrality ought to be dealt with, if not by govt regulation. Or is the line of thinking that only those rich enough to buy face masks, and have climate controlled mansions with private beaches may enjoy those things.. Maybe this is entirely orthogonal to this thread, so maybe there could be a separate HN thread just for this discussion? I welcome your suggestion and am wholly on board but I really don’t think individually emailing you is the most productive method to have, what is in fact, a wide ranging discussion with multiple participants.

This seems, at a high level, similar to the various mental arithmetic tricks/pnemonics from India, commonly known as “Vedic Mathematics”. e.g. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-best-Vedic-math-t...

Indeed, one wonders what sort of due diligence the investors conducted.. I suspect (since convoluted shell structures are not (at all) uncommon in practice) it could have been that they weren’t actually aware of the full potential ramifications, or to the extent that they were, they didn’t imagine it’d go to the (literally) extreme scenario. In any case, a tale of caution this certainly is.

You’re right that they’re not impossible to recycle or decompose. I asked about the economics of getting that done..There’s already a huge problem now that the Chinese are no longer buying trash to recycle cheaply. If the cost of recycling is factored in, do these once-use products remain affordable and profitable? They’re not made from paper, but from plastics and metals, which take specialized recycling.

I’d like to add something to what I wrote earlier: how is it any more “moral” to be working for any company whose primary revenue source is based on sneaking up ads on unsuspecting people and tracking all manner of personal data without permission? At least in the case of an adult site or a gambling site, the proposition is very clear - you know what you’re going there for and that’s what you get. On the other hand, nobody goes to a website for the express purpose of giving away their personal data and getting stealth cookies on their machines to track their every move. I’d argue working for any of the ad-network or personal-data companies is more immoral compared to working for a casio company.

At the risk of skipping a lot of (extremely entertaining - a highly recommended read about the innards of corporate shell structures amd shareholder rights) detail, the story boils down to 1) the common observation that laws are only as useful to you as your ability to get them enforced, 2) sometimes even very rich and able people can have a lot of trouble enforcing laws, in a rightful case, against someone determined who knows to cleverly play the legal system.

Easy: not everyone finds those businesses “immoral”.

Many find it blends very nicely with their own personal libertarian attitudes. This blending is made even smoother by the nice paychecks these industries offer. e.g. algorithm engineers, quants/mathmaticians, etc. in gambling businesses, site reliability and streaming engineers at adult sites. These are hard technical problems, of the exact same nature as any trading business or netflix. Why wouldn’t an engineer be attracted to them? Not everyone shares the same moral values. And a lot of technically minded folks tend to have some libertarian tendencies.