msredmond

We got so much interest in our "What do the highest-paid programmer's make?" article http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2592671 ($400K for a former HFT dev) we wrote this follow-up with a deeper look inside the industry, languages and tools used, etc.

I think not firing someone is a much bigger hit on team morale. If someone is either doing something that affects everyone badly/not doing what they're supposed to do (causing other people to do their work), why keep them? Firing is a temporary downer; keeping someone on staff who shouldn't be there is a long-term one. If your team is great and they care (which I think all great teams do) you owe it to them to replace that person with someone who is on the same level.

Wow, that's just mind-blowingly wrong.

I'm getting an error when I click through on this link: https://secure.news.ycombinator.com/registration/?rPage=logi...

Anyone else?

Yes, I've noticed this too -- it seems like it happens when I "take too long" looking at a New page. Since it doesn't seem to happen to me much on the home page, so maybe tied to the number of items posted since landing on a page?

If it's not too late: beckynagelRMG

I agree that college is overpriced in general. However, not getting a degree is just not an option for most people. It's not just lawyers, doctors and high finance -- entry-level jobs in most professional fields including sciences, engineering, education, nursing, psychology, journalism (I can go on and on) require at least a bachelor's degree. Yes, people can learn a lot on their own, but without that piece of paper, many positions will be completely out of reach for you without it (not saying its right or wrong, just that it's reality)

This is great! I just sent a link to my designer - have two projects already I want to use this for. Really a neat idea

Thank goodness. Don't get me wrong -- glad Righthaven lost for many reasons -- but if this judge's ruling on the fair use of full reprint were to become precedent I think the web would be lost to a landslide of "scraper" sites (more than it already is). They'd just add a line of commentary and go.

One problem is that some filters automatically block people from going to pages based on the words on that page. Using bullsh*t may help mitigate that.

This is pretty darn cool -- thanks for sharing it.

My friend had his bike stolen in Long Beach, Ca. Decided to chase after the (very young) teenagers who took it. Got shot and killed.

Just FYI that vigilantism really isn't the way to go -- you just don't know what can happen.

Just to reiterate - we retracted story. Our source retracted so we retracted story. Be great if someone at ycombinator can change headline to reflect this (I also started a new "We f'd up" thread to make it clear there. We are SO sorry)

We got it wrong -- our source who confirmed it retracted after hearing Doug's denial. We have since corrected the story. Our source was not as solid as we thought -- looks like it was a practical joke a group level. But whatever it was, we F'd up, and we've since taken it down. We are very, very sorry. Huge fail on our part.

Great read -- and didn't know the origins of EFF before this. Thanks for posting!

;-)

Nah, I'm a journalist, on the receiving end (and also, being a journalist, poor).

Headline wrong -- June 15, not June 2015

This is pretty standard -- get anti-Google (and Microsoft, and Apple) pitches all the time. About the only thing that isn't standard is the fact that the PR firm won't say who their client is. That pretty much never happens (at least to me). So the fact that they won't say who it is makes it kinda interesting, but it could just be some nutjob somewhere who decided to spend his money on hiring a PR firm.

Thank you for posting this -- very informative!

The copyright issues are exactly the same -- nonexistent. This is really basic stuff.

Why all of the sudden do I feel that this whole thread is just an attempt to get notice/attention for these sites?

It's so sad to me that people think of it this way -- not guaranteed. You should always be able to trust a reporter who promises you that. The unethical ones really burn us all.

You're exactly right that they do -- it's called reporters.

If you're going to submit to the WSJ, do it through a person -- not this system.

Unfortunately, unless you can verify them, you don't publish them. That does mean that some things that are genuine will not get published. But it avoids what's worse -- publishing things that aren't true.

It's not better protection, it's worse. The fact that they have that clause proves it -- journalists don't tell their sources they'll give them up in the face of a lawsuit, but this clause is saying the paper will to people who leak in this method = less protection.

I just posted a comment about that elsewhere on this thread -- that's what disturbs me so much about this. It's creating a separate level of protection that people won't understand (journalism ethics proscribe that you don't give up your source, ever). The WSJ needs to stay out of this unless its going to protect these submitters to the same level as any other source (and you don't give people up because you're being sued).

As a journalist I find it really disturbing that the WSJ has this clause.

The #2 rule in journalism (after tell the truth) is protect your sources -- if you promise not to reveal your source, you don't reveal your source. It's not, "well, I promise not to reveal you -- unless I get a subpoena, then you're SOL." And yes, that means going to jail if you have to. Which is why as a journalist you have to be very careful who you give it to.

I realize that by the nature of what they've posted they're not promising it, so now there's two standards -- if you submit through the site, you have some protection, but to a journalist on their staff, then, you have the (assumed) full protection. But now there's that separate level of protection -- we'll give you anonymity, depending on some sort of arbitrary process if submitted through this site. And most people don't understand what a professional reporter will (or should) do for their source -- if they hand papers over in one or two cases, many people will assume that all journalists will just cave,and that will hurt everyone.

I do understand why they don't want to give blanket full protection for things unknown/unseen, but unless they're willing to do that, I really don't think a journalistic entity should do this kind of site at all.

The quotes are really nothing to do with copyright.

Quotes are like reporting -- they (the people) can't copyright something just because they said it. I can quote what you say, you can quote me -- there's nothing there actionable. (People do sometimes trademark quotes, but those are for limited use scope -- must definite usage -- and again, trademark, not copyright, so can still quote them).

Was the quote from a magazine article? Well then yes, the magazine has the copyright to the ARTICLE, but a quote from it would (I think most lawyers feel) be perfectly fair use.,

In no way on that site do I see an actionable copyright claim on the people being quoted (standard I'm not a lawyer though clause here)

Actually, I think the "inspiring" (his words) Aston Kutcher poster makes it so the shot at hiring anyone with actual taste is out the window.

Brought me to tears..almost bringing me to tears again reading it here.

Agree on the messed up, but I'm not so sure about the hoping it gets tested -- it could go the other way.

What's really insidious about this (obvious -- but I have to rant) is that the general public really doesn't understand copyright, and if this signing over of full copyright (vs. partial -- right to sue -- overturned in that recent righthaven) is held up, this could become standard practice for all doctors and even other services. I know I'd never sign one of these, but I'm betting most people who aren't aware will just sign it away and won't even think about it.

Any copyright lawyers out there who can talk about any kind of precedents with this that might apply? (BTW: Seems like the EFF site is currently down? Read part of the article and now that I'm going back site won't load)