akikuchi

It is interesting to see the different reactions to this article. Byrne is clearly sympathetic to Aaron’s cause, and to the fact that civil disobedience and other sometimes subversive methods can be effective in dealing with injustice.

There seem to be many comments attacking him for various minor gripes, choice of language, his incomplete understanding of the situation, etc. But that seems to miss the point. He’s ultimately asking how did this end up so wrong, and what can we learn from this tragic situation. How far should someone need to be prepared to go when taking a stand? How might more effective publicity/messaging have furthered the cause or helped prevent the judicial process from spiraling out of hand.

Technical advancement and the proliferation of data create scenarios that are clearly not intuitive to the average person. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes attack/lecture less technically proficient observers, rather than try to more meaningfully communicate and get to the heart of the issue.

Byrne connects the JSTOR situation to the very different realms of wikileaks, manning, music publishing, etc. For those who care about the rules governing information sharing, IP, etc, this begs the critical question of “how do we differentiate among these ideas, so they are not all muddled together in the public’s eye.”

I believe he's referring more to the fact that the real world price per unit of game currency is not a round number. If dragon eggs were worth exactly $1 each, people would be slightly more careful about the value/cost of in-game purchases.

I agree with you, and more generally I find the "life isn't fair/no excuses" mindset to be a strange phenomenon. The idea that being prepared for adversity, planning ahead, etc. is a good thing is totally sensible. And sometimes you get some bad breaks, and you have to take your lumps and move on. But I can't help but feel that sometimes those that take the "no matter what" position are doing so less in response to the specific situation, and more because they have been conditioned/hardened against the many people that do look for shortcuts or are too quick to make excuses.

It seems like many in the no-excuses camp often frame the hard line as teaching a lesson for "the real world." But I would argue that a main reason deadlines are important in the real world is because other stakeholders need to have clear expectations to use for their own planning. It's unreasonable to expect them to adjust their plans do to one party's shifting schedule, and it's generally a bad idea to treat deadlines lightly.

But if there's a sensible reason and it doesn't cause a big problem for anyone, I don't see why the "principle" of a deadline should trump empathy and business judgement.

Especially since YC can always use the timing and circumstances of the application as additional pieces of information in their process.

Creative thinking, but I'd have to disagree with your conclusion. The present value of the additional years of copyright would be very low, especially taking into account 1. the probability that the work will still be a source of value 100 years (not the exact number, but for the sake of argument) in the future and 2.The possibility of changes in the local jurisdiction or US law over that time.

Your idea would mean paying 100k for the possibility of receiving some additional value 100 years in the future. The first 100 years of value are already protected under US law.

I search HN a lot, so am excited by this native implementation. I would be curious to know more about how the "relevance" sorting algorithm works though. When I did a test search for "domain registrar," for example, the top result was a comment with a score of -4. It seems like there are many ways to implement that feature, so would would be quite interested to hear more if the creators were able to share some thoughts on the general "relevance" problem.

The article's bullet points are great, but I would emphasize one thing:

Don't be afraid to ask, but only AFTER YOU'VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. People can be surprisingly helpful, but especially if it's clear you're working hard to make each request count. They're much less likely to think you're wasting their time if it's clear you've been hustling and see their help as a catalyst for you working EVEN HARDER.

The crux of the issue as I see it is an extension of what mathematics educators call "number sense." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_sense)

It seems from many of the other comments is that people recognize that performing exact mental-arithmetic calculations is rarely necessary; however, the more intuitive understanding of how numbers relate in magnitude etc. is critically important. Estimation is something that I think many of us take for granted, but that has some significant mental pre-requisites.

Interestingly, a growing branch of mathematics education has been working to explore whether the traditional rote memorization is the most effective way of instilling this more hollistic understanding of numbers. If people were interested, I could ask some educator friends for more up-to-date links/citations on this topic.

As a starting point, I think there is not much downside in showing full integer comment scores for comments over n (n=2?) days old.

In addition, I think there are a variety of ways of improving the "ease of consumption" (ie scanning for good comments) without re-introducing the gaming-type issues with integer comment scores. For example:

1. Use a log(karma) function or some other simple obfuscation method 2. Highlight/mark comments by a small number of point thresholds or quantiles 3. Highlight/mark only the top x% of comments on a thread

I do think there is value in seeing some signals of comment quality, but I don't think these need to be particularly granular at all (even just one or two "good comment tiers" could be sufficient).

That is a reasonable possibility, and I think we probably agree on many aspects of the problem. The general observation still holds though, that the current compensation reality does not attract a broad enough pool.

The challenges of professional recognition, accountability and performance measurement which you aptly highlight are very real. I may be interpreting you incorrectly, but you seem to blame teachers for those issues. My thought is that teachers recognize that the broad challenges facing the industry, and recognize that a comprehensive solution will probably require some significant reforms. But I imagine they also believe that just giving up some of their current rights will not be a sufficient solution without more comprehensive reform. So in the meantime their better off with the status quo.

I think your assertion about the "rhetorical sleight of hand" is pretty far off-base, and is an (admittedly subtle) strawman. The main points of the article, from my perspective were 1. The issues with education in the US are complex, and blanket vilification of teachers is neither warranted nor productive. 2. The pool of high-quality new teaching candidates seems limited (and quite possibly shrinking); current compensation levels for teachers, relative to other job opportunities, is almost certainly a contributing factor.

Your argument is effectively responding to the idea that "we don't find that pay package attractive enough to make us want to be teachers" by saying "but you're using the wrong word- you should look at compensation." Okay, then "we don't find that compensation package attractive enough."

I certainly don't think that just paying teachers more is going to fix anything. But the vilification of the profession, which the article laments and you effectively condone, is in my opinion a big distraction. I agree that tenure is not a perfect system, but neither is it entirely without its benefits. Until more progress is made on a more comprehensive response to education reform, attacking the teachers for not giving up their long-held rights seems a bit unrealistic.

Alternate format for browsing the catalogue: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/searchresults.aspx?intSal...

That's a fine sounding sentence, but what do you actually mean by that? Do you mean the wealth distribution when subtracting out the equity value of financial businesses? Or ignoring the net worth of individuals who happen to be currently employed in the financial sector? My first reaction is that your comment is suspiciously vague, and might be confusing income with wealth.

I guess I have two points:

1. Your observations about Atari and Newton highlight one of the problems with your initial argument- it's not generally a safe bet to assume an early category-creating product will continue to innovate and develop to stay at the front of the pack.

2. Whether RIM creates a broadly superior product is beside the point. A new market has opened up, and they expect it should be profitable if they can capture just a small share of that market.

Apple has shown a commitment to develop their successful product lines; but as the size of the market grows there will be plenty of room for profitable competitors even if Apple is wildly successful.

Would you have said you can't out-Newton the Newton? You can't out-Atari the Atari?

one of the tagline descriptors from the video: "Flash-loving"

Interesting they highlight that in their first marketing video. I suppose with these things it can be difficult to differentiate device capabilities that consumers can actually comprehend (as opposed to just tech spec stats). I still wonder to what extent people actually know whether or not they care about having flash capabilities on their mobile devices.

This is one of the least enlightening articles I've seen in a long time. I understand that it's a challenge to succinctly summarize a 73 page paper in 300 words, but here the author seems to be happy to use the paper's "findings" to support a extremely simplified "fact" about the current tax system.

The numbers cited in the article are based on a wide collection of parameters/assumptions, but that is ignored in the summary.

Interestingly, the paper on which the article is based was directly supported by fairtax.org- an organization solely dedicated to a drastic restructuring of the tax system.

The all in tax burden at different levels of income is a very interesting concept to explore. But here it seems like both the journalist and the paper's authors have addressed the issue with a bias which takes away from what could otherwise be a very interesting subject.

Anyone interested in reading more about this should check out this paper that was fairly central in advancing the debate over the last four years. It's an interesting read, and highlights some of the challenges with matching tax policy to desired outcomes. http://victorfleischer.com/archives/80

Also, this is an interesting blog archive from when the author of that paper was a regular contributor, as the debate picked up in 2006-2007: http://www.theconglomerate.org/taxation/page/3/

I have two family friends who are recently retired and are currently about 2 months into their walk. The American Discovery Trail is actually a partially-marked cross country trail. The thing I take away from their trail journal is how many great people they've met along the way. http://www.discoverytrail.org/

New Update: "To those worrying about us--we're fine, and will issue a suitable riposte shortly."

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10993931099

He seems to have likely switched the mean and median, so the median may actually be 28.3. It's interesting to see the numbers, but the given statistics don't seem to quite make sense.

I'm a fan of Mixergy interviews, but only occasionally check what's new- the incentive is not there when I'm not consciously planning on spending an hour. This model will make me more likely to check the site more often. The analytics will give a better picture (and I'm sure many of us would be very interested in seeing how traffic changes if Andrew would like to share that down the road), but count me as one user whose behavior will be influenced by this change.

I'm doubtful that I'll end up as a paid subscriber, but my sense is that subscriber revenue is relatively less important compared to the potentially powerful effect of creating the sense of urgency among users.

Regarding number #9, it refers to the very real danger those involved in the drug trade face if they are perceived to be even in the same vicinity as officers of the law. If you are seen to be an informant, your competitors (or even partners in your supply chain or organization) may take preventative retaliatory action without worrying about getting all the facts.

I think this is actually one of the most fitting of the 10 points. You have to be very careful about appearances, both with respect to potential dealmaking, as well as more generally staying out in front of the curve in managing your brand image. Its easy for people to jump to conclusions, and it's generally less stressful to keep the message clean from the beginning than to have to backtrack and explain that you weren't in fact trying to block all traffic to 4chan.

I thought this was really pretty funny; I would have been concerned if there was NO stretching of the interpretations. These guys do seem to have found some pretty innovative ways of looking at business intelligence...

Please read the article before commenting on what it does or does not talk about: "the tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded entitlements and promises, ... the metastasizing health-care costs, our energy gluttony. These structural deficits are unsustainable."

Also, I would be wary of any analysis of a situation as complex as US health care that lays blame 100pct on "out of control doctors."

The reasonable letter is not intended to win sympathy, nor does it cut off other options. If they maintain a firm, unreasonable position, OP's options are still open and he can intensify the conversation. Starting with a thoughtful explanation of his side of the story is evidence of a good-faith effort to work out a solution, which improves his position if other parties get involved (e.g. lawyers, the internet).

Worst case: you're back where you started, but have demonstrated for the record that you were prepared to work together to find a sensible solution.

Best case: you've kept things civil, and come to an agreement without any inflaming the situation further.

Write them a thoughtful, well-reasoned letter explaining:

1. How as an active member of he developer community, you have enjoyed building useful tools which expand the reach of the Zillow brand.

2. How you have dedicated significant time and energy to this project, on the understanding that they provided the API to encourage enterprising and curious developers such as yourself to find new valuable ways to interact with Zillow.

3. You are a reasonable person, and would be willing to sell the domain for a reasonable amount.

4. What you think is a reasonable amount, and some simple calculations/reasoning supporting this number.

You might even say that you were surprised by the small sum the initially offered, but with the information given I don't think there's any reason to be too offended-they probably just threw something out there to see if it worked. I also think it's quite early to start talking about negative pr campaigns etc. as others are suggesting. That won't get you any extra money, which as I understand it is your goal at this point.

edit- to suggest maybe including something from their "about us" section to describe what you were doing; trying to "help consumers by giving them access" to information.

Also to note, while their tactics aren't particularly subtle or magnanimous, I do believe in giving some benefit of the doubt- especially until after you've seen their response to your thoughtful response.

edit2- in 1.) above, you probably don't want to say you're expanding the "zillow brand"- no reason to help their IP/trademark position. just say something similarly pleasant sounding.

"if we're going to talk about math, let's get out of the abstract and into the specific. Let's talk details. Examples. What could be more math-y than that?" (from the codinghorror post)

This topic seems to come up relatively frequently, and I appreciate Jeff's attempt to add to the conversation with some interestingly selected quotes. Still, the above quote to me highlights how many people, including Jeff, vastly oversimplify the math side of the equation. To put lbrandy's comment slightly differently, knowing a large number of mathematical facts will not make you a good programmer. But to me a basic explanation of “mathematical inclination” could be: a strong understanding of how a mathematical system is governed by rules, and how a problem can be parsed, compartmentalized, and addressed in pieces. It seems fairly self-evident to me that those skills would be shared by anyone whol could be described as even a competent programmer.

I actually enjoy many of the posts about the creative (or at least somewhat non-traditional) things people do as solo entrepreneurs. After reading the entire article though, I do find it funny how this tagline was used to position the article for the HN community. The article is actually much more of a character study than a discussion of a business, and it takes a significant change in content after the first thousand words.

It is interesting to think of this post in relation to the one regarding scalable vs. non-scalable careers. Professional schools are prerequisites for many of the most obvious, lucrative non-scalable careers. But if you consider the possibility that you will change careers even if you make it through graduate school (because you get tired of being a dentist, for example), then your decision to pursue a non-scalable career looks much riskier.

While I think the concept of scalability in careers is very interesting, I'm not sure Taleb's "look at everything in the world in the context of my last book's title" framework provides the right perspective for the discussion. While the true home runs are indeed low probability events, risk/reward is quite asymmetrical in many scalable careers(i.e. there are no fat-tails to the downside). In the case of the author, the worst case is you spend a year writing a book, and receive zero revenue from the book. That is a pretty well defined worst-case, and is not particularly disastrous (assuming you can afford your expenses while writing).

Put differently, scalability does not imply high-risk. In the most literal sense though, non-scalability does imply limited potential reward.

This seems to me like a good example of an interesting subject, edited into an overly-condensed article, and tagged with a catchy, but somewhat misleading title. I imagine it would be very difficult to control an experiment just on response to anger (as opposed to other emotions). Without seeing more detail, this article to me basically says that being self-aware and having a healthy understanding of the full range of one's natural emotions "is good for career." Doesn't seem particularly groundbreaking that anger would be included in that list.