Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | login

But will it work with Emblem? Also how does this affect FastBoot?

-----


Emblem compiles to Handlebars so it will gain all of the benefits of Glimmer. FastBoot is only concerned with the initial render which is done on the server. Glimmer is concerned with updates so it will not directly affect FastBoot but will work with it.

-----


As any trader will tell you, "the price justifies the risk". You won't be able to buy a share of SnapChat now at a low price relative to fair value ( if, as others have suggested, you're able to buy at all ). Look close and you'll see that for top deals, even VCs and bankers margins are getting squeezed.

-----


Is it really possible for someone to find motivation to risk their lives to fight for a paycheck?

See: pretty much all of history. Generals routinely promised wealth from invasion of neighboring places. In fact, rare is the case where the promise for fighting in a large scale war was not one of wealth, but of some derivative resource ( freedom, religious reasons, pride ). That is a relatively recent construct (maybe last 200 years).

-----


  >> would that necessarily result in higher wages for everyone else?
Unless companies like Google relocate ( to where? ) then yes, wages would absolutely rise, because they don't allow WFH [1], ergo the only engineers available would be those in the Bay Area, NYC, etc. No, they wouldn't outsource critical infrastructure to places like India or China, who hacked them. I also don't see them picking up and leaving and going to e.g. Vancouver.

I think the only way to address this "great engineer" thing without American engineers crying foul is to gasp introduce standardized testing that all the American tech companies -- who can't get the amazing talent -- agree upon and then select the 99th percentile of the candidates that pass it and pay them in the 99th percentile of wages for the bay area. This would be an objective measure and Americans wouldn't be suspicious of whatever criteria VCs/founders use to measure "great programming ability". Make the interviews and the criteria public, bring it to the light, then people would be more inclined to believe them. Right now I simply hear a bunch of hand-wavey math and see a bunch of rich people whining about how they don't have engineers to build their things. Yes, I know there are flaws with standardized tests, but it's the best of bad things.

[1] Most companies. Yahoo notoriously, but most companies aren't in favor of allowing WFH.

-----


A lot of west coast companies are in Vancouver. It's not their headquarters but having a Vancouver office gives them access to large pools of foreign talent that they can't easily bring into the US. It's also conveniently located in the same time zone as California and Washington which reduces the difficulties of having remote workers.

Any standardized test will be gamed. Just look at all of the books and other resources you can find for how to solve the types of problems that get asked in coding interviews.

-----


Uhh India hacked Google?(I know about China). References? Google has an office in Bangalore and people here do work on "critical infrastructure".

-----


  >> I'm not sure NK even has the computer skills to pull it off, for that matter
Ugh, it pains me to see people get this so wrong. Let me state this as plainly as possible: when you're attacked by a state, whatever encryption or security you have in place doesn't matter. They'll go after your weakest link, and exploit that until they have access to whoever controls your security infrastructure. It could be as simple as bribing an Ops guy, or it could be as complex as planting a spy, or secretly threatening someone with access. Once you're up against a state, all bets are off.

-----


While I realize that you can do a lot with 'rubber hose' cryptography, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the Sony hack as I don't remember any reports of such.

Also, I don't get how this hack helps North Korea in any real way. Maybe there really are 'links' as such, but I honestly wonder if this was something they put together as I don't see how it helps them.

-----


>Once you're up against a state, all bets are off.

This is a gross oversimplification.

Some states are much more capable than others. The US and China probably have more digital offensive capability than everyone else put together.

Some targets are much easier than others. Larger companies usually present a larger attack surface. Some companies don't care as much about security. If you're one person with really good OPSEC practices, you're substantially harder to go after than a large organization.

And, of course, all security is a matter of degrees. You don't need to have perfect security; you just need to have security good enough that the group coming after you can't justify the expense of circumventing it.

-----


Nope! News is simply "here's some words you might be interested in reading, and hopefully believing: ...words here...". Journalism is a dying art.

-----


  Any time you say "I'd hire a local over a foreigner", you're effectively being racist.
And if someone says "I'd hire a foreigner over a local", what does that make those hiring managers? What if that is the prevailing opinion in SV?

-----


Why is Loudoun County, Virginia so prosperous? It has a median household income of $122,000, but I don't see any meaningful employers in the area, and it's a large population of around 350,000 people.

-----


That's Northern VA where tons of tech companies are and was the veritable center of the internet before Silicon Valley. (AOL is or was headquartered in Dulles which is in Loudoun County). It still houses a massive amount of technology companies, data centers, etc.

-----


It's a DC suburb. The usual DC set plus the Dulles tech corridor set. Also, northern VA suburbs are really aggressive about keeping out lower-income people (poor social services, poor transportation), which keeps the average high. The suburbs here don't have really rich people the way you see around other major cities, just very homogenous upper middle class ones.

-----


It was noted in this interview that most of the highest income ZIP codes in the country surround areas with large federal infrastructure:

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/06/140056904/the-top-secret-ameri...

-----


It's right outside of DC/Baltimore. Lots of money to be had. I'd expect there's lots of lawyers, lobbyists, policy makers, etc with homes there.

-----


The 267 toll-road is the main artery for an absolutely massive defense-tech industry. It's a huge ecosystem with companies from 1 person to 100,000. Even though the mechanisms are largely the same, these small-companies-destined-to-be-bought-out-by-big-companies aren't really called "startups" and aren't thought of in quite the same way. The education level in the county is also obscenely high compared to elsewhere in the U.S.

The Federal government is also an absolutely absurdly large employer and the pay is reasonable.

-----


I grew up in the county. The reason it's so well off is the proximity to dc and large tech/defense corridor. The county attracts the rich because you can buy a McMansion with land, and still get to work. It's built up heavily in the last thirty years (I passed cow pastures and corn fields on the way to school), but they're mostly gone now.

-----


I've known people who commuted from as far as Winchester WV and Richmond VA for their DC job.

-----


Loudon County, Virginia is a very similar county to the Virginia County I live in. The geography is the same, the politics is (was) the same, the laws and societal structures are almost identical.

But the last time I visited Loudon, it was freaking amazing. Instead of seeing rural farms, my road trip consisted of driving past mansion after mansion. Talking to some folks at the local supermarket, the county is having a heckuva time trying to coordinate all the new growth.

It's federal contracts. You can't borrow and spend the amount the government has over the last ten years or so without the management and prime vendor layer skimming off a tremendous amount of cash. These aren't necessarily folks putting in the commute to do the 9-5 every day. More likely they'll have a hired car, or come into the city and stay at a nice hotel (or an apartment rented for just this purpose)

Loudon is a really interesting experiment in growth and unintended consequences. I'd love to come back in 20-30 years and read a study of the inside game of everything that's going on there. Must be weird to have a PTA meeting with out-of-town, newly minted multimillionaires sitting next to minimum wage folks who grew up there.

-----


I wouldn't say "vastly", at least not now. It is probably easier if you come from a "target" background ( went to a prestigious school, graduated MBA, worked 100-120 hr weeks as an analyst... ). But for the average joe off the street? Tech is "vastly" easier to become a millionaire. That is to say, you have zero chance of becoming a millionaire in finance without the required background, but as someone with, say, an English degree you can start a startup, get it to a series A round and presto, you're a millionaire on paper. Get it to a B round, and you're a millionaire for real.

-----


You're vastly overestimating how easy it is to raise a series A - the majority of YC companies don't make it to series A. The chances of an inexperienced non-tech founder raising a series A are small; there are hundreds if not thousands of such founders who try and fail for everyone who succeeds.

Investment banking is also far from homogenous, the requirements for being in sales at a mid-tier commodity fund in Chicago are vastly different from being in M&A at Goldman in New York. You can be pretty far down the pecking ladder in banking and still easily bank $1m+.

-----


There is no need to reiterate how difficult it is to build a successful startup. My point was that even after controlling for this difficulty, for the average developer it's going to be "easier" to make $1mm by starting their own startup. The vast majority of finance professionals with target backgrounds won't break 200k in income per year. There are outliers in every profession and sure there are some hotshot salespeople and quants that make 1mm+/yr, but: when I look closely, and from talking with friends who work at namebrand banks and PE groups, it seems they're no more prevalent in finance than successful startup founders are in tech (i'd still like to see hard data on this because there are so many ways to compensate people and most have no incentive to report this, in both industries).

Now on to compensation: comparing apples to oranges, a Goldman Sachs VP's total compensation is about 240k, or roughly what a senior software engineer at Google makes. If I were a brilliant developer, I would rather work at Google and make the same amount than going through the meat grinder than is your IB to become a GS VP.

-----


I disagree. Playing sports at the highest levels is an academic activity, it's just not recognized as an academic activity today. You definitely have to study, recognize patterns, solve problems, etc. Just not so much reading books and writing papers.

-----


By the modern understanding of the word "academic" it is more like a skilled trade.

-----


> reading books and writing papers.

So you'd argue that football is an intellectual pursuit in the same sense that math, physics, philosophy, or history is?

That study of the nuts and bolts of the game is worthy of the attention of our finest minds (as a discipline unto itself)?

The "reading books and writing papers" you mention is a severe and tragic distortion of why universities exist. It has little to do with the academic activity that's occurring outside the undergraduate classrooms.

It might be the case that there is a lot of waste happening in universities due to the commodification of education, but that doesn't trivialize the serious work that's still happening, however underfunded it remains.

-----


It's at least on par with, literature, music, philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, art, or any other "soft" subjects lacking of direct impact on people's lives. It's held to a higher standard than economics, but has less impact.

As to math I would argue it's more meaningful than say topology, but less than other branches.

-----


If you're listing topology as "less meaningful", I'm guessing you haven't spent much time studying topics in physics that have been developed since the 1970s or so. Topology turns out to be a pretty big deal.

-----


There has been plenty of post 1970's physics advances, but the number of useful ones (for the average person) directly linked to Topology is much smaller.

EX: Fusion research is potentially extremely useful, but so far it's impact is basically nothing. Ditto Astrophysics.

Though, if you have anything specific in mind I would love to hear about it as I am really drawing a blank.

-----


Your casual dismissal of half the central core of human intellectual enterprise over the last 4000 years raised my eyebrows, but when I got to your comment about topology it became clear you have no idea what you're talking about or are simply trolling. Either way, stop.

-----


It's not that I think they have low or zero value. Or even personally care about the sport. It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year.

Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives increasing it's value immensely.

PS: History for example is important, but the study of history has fairly limited impact outside of entertainment for most people.

-----


> For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year.

Not sure this is the case. Pew pegs the percentage of Americans who read a book last year at 77% [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-decl...], and the Super Bowl drew 111 million viewers [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-bowl-2014-ratings-set-new-...]. I'd guess the number of people who watched a football game but not the Super Bowl last year isn't totally insignificant, but probably not huge (and I'm skeptical that the ratings aren't maybe a little inflated).

-----


Your assuming everyone who read a book did so for fun. Scroll down on your first link and the percentage is 55% of adults and 52% 18-24 year olds. Compared to 64% of americans watching an NFL game. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/10/14/no-surprise-64-a...

Further, football goes beyond the supper bowl and beyond the NFL. Including collage, high school etc, and an estimated 200+ million people watched at least one football game last year.

-----


> It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people.

The question wasn't whether it was actively enjoyed by a large number of people, but whether it was "an academic activity".

The idea that was is an "academic activity" is defined by how widely enjoyed the activity is probably only defensible with a very unusual definition of "academic".

-----


My point is not to defend it as an academic activity, but to measure the impact.

"Game theory" is clearly an academic activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

The study of football at a deeper level is a subset of that, but it covers a fairly wide area. From which plays to call in offence vs defense. Cost benefit of risking a player injury in a low win percentage game. Which players to sign etc. (Or even just the math around fantasy football.)

I mean just because your covering a specific WWI battle does not mean your doing something else and not studding history.

-----

More

Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: