Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | tezza's comments login

95% of people make any decision based on what their peer group does. Only 5% make up their own mind on any given issue.

This changes issue by issue and people who make up their own mind on some issues, follow the 95% peer group on others.

This is the most revelatory insight for me from a book packed to the brim with insights and science and evidence and wit

-----


If you look at hiring forms in Big Companies... There are checkboxes for Degree as well as PhD. It is common for managers to simply tick a box and send to HR / Recruiting firm.

So people without those get filtered out before anyone ever sees your CV. If you're never going to work at a Big Company, then this doesn't matter

Also, if you'd like to emigrate or work overseas, having a degree helps your case ( Australia, UK )

-----


Others have mentioned U6 etc.

The issue of the headline figure not capturing certain key features is mentioned as nauseum on CNBC a or any decent financial news source.

Gallup and the person who posted this is trying to make it sound like a revelation. Further almost all types of employment has improved.

Here in the UK we have a similar obfuscation technique where the opposition says more women are out of work than ever, whereas the government says more women are in work than ever. Both are true, but behind the scenes it is because there is the largest population of work aged women ever.

-----


I think some in depth academic research would be required to determine the optimal strategy. Intuitive strategies may not be as good as some counter-intuitive options.

I'm not qualified to answer either way, I imagine several people could get PhDs finding out. It's too important to handle quickly

-----


I'm sorry, but I do exactly what you say is impossible.

  > Putting backups into the cloud is a terrible idea
  > and transferring large data collection over a
  > residential Internet connection makes little sense.
I work with video, music and large images. So my home backup is 3.6 TB. I now use CrashPlan: a cloud backup, who have no problem with the capacity. It took ~ 6 months to store everything, but now it just sends the deltas quietly behind the scenes.

I lost a 1TB drive the other day, and the restore worked well after a bit of jiggerypokery.

Previously I used an LTO2 tape system involving Bacula, a VMWare linux instance and a lot of changing tapes. Cloud backup is so much better

-----


Isn't this what TPM was designed to avoid ?

Neither files nor env variables.

Most chipsets have a rather unused TPM function, and it should be possible to have developers and processes hook into that.

Perhaps using tmptool ? On master process startup ask user for passphrase, and use that to query the TPM stored values ?

http://manpages.courier-mta.org/htmlman1/tpmtool.1.html

-----


I have to admit that I don't know a thing about TPM. Like is it also available in virtual environments like AWS is providing? How could this be automated? You don't want to enter a passphrase every time a server (re)boots. Would love to hear if anybody successfully used that.

-----


  Cloud servers
  =============
Xen supports virtual TPM.

I'm no Amazon EC2 expert, but a quick google exposed a few keen souls who tried to use vTPM and failed. This would suggest that Amazon does not yet support vTPM.

  Re-entering passphrases
  ========================
Well, unless the machine is permissioned by default you will need to give a fresh instance new authorization. Permissioning by default is the same security problem you're trying to avoid though... just shifted. Your overall goal is to have the credentials inaccessible to sniffing, right ?

I guess you could set up some form of ssh-agent handshake to make the process less manual.

-----


XenServer (The product from Citrix) or Xen 4.3+ support vTPM. Not sure which version of Xen that Amazon uses, but if/when they upgrade to 4.3 it should have built-in support for vTPM operations.

-----


sniffing isn't the main issue I'm trying to avoid, it's accidental exposure. I.e. minimising the risk that during normal operations the secrets get exposed somehow.

-----


Okay... sniffed accidentally then ( putting them in the wrong directory, not using fs permissions properly etc )

I would say that you should consider malicious sniffing too

-----


Change freezes have more uses than the OP has highlighted.

We've just had Christmas and Boxing Day. There may be less support staff available on those days, and the devs may be on holiday.

By having a change freeze beforehand, the set of things that have changed is reduced, so any issue that arises will be easier to diagnose.

Less changes allows a firm to justify the lower support overhead... not eliminate it

-----


I'd say that's a straight up work freeze, not just a change freeze.

-----


Not quite a work freeze. There is a subtle difference in that only the most critical code fixes will go in, we'd just document everything else and come up with solutions for the rest.

So this isn't exactly a 100% code freeze. There are still critical fixes that might go in with managerial understanding and approval.

The downside is people then start saying things like "my fix doesn't require any code changes, only SQL changes." I am not trying to be pedantic and say SQL is code, which it is, Rather, if the change could be done better in C# but we do a workaround in the database layer, that isn't exactly ideal.

-----


What PG is stating is broadly true.

It may be possible to eke out a few more % of programmers by teaching computing more widely.

At the moment the bunch of programmers is fairly self-selecting, and there may be many more people who may be great programmers if exposed to the possibilities.

For instance, some people who would normally become metal workers, stone masons, fine artists or mechanical engineers could make excellent programmers.

-----


Most journalists are barely informed cut'n'paste merchants.

Journalists value the sensational over the factual, and work hard (true) to tight deadlines.

So they already do not care about the tech features promised, namely indicating:

* there is not enough evidence to make a given point

* a certain person or company has not been investigated thoroughly enough

* a certain point is not relevant

[edit: data points]

Cut'n'paste obituary from Wikipedia: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_c...

"Hack": A self referential term journalists use for each other in the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer

-----


Most programmers are barely capable Stack Overflow copy'n'paste merchants.

Programmers value the hacky over the elegant, and work hard to tight release cycles.

And yet there are programmers who care, and who seek out and use better ways of doing things, including the tools to help them. Just as there are journalists who care about getting things right, digging up and exposing the truth.

In fact, a great way to lift the general standard is to make the right way of doing something also the easy way of doing it: better tools can counteract short deadlines and occasional lapses of discipline.

-----


>Journalists value the sensational over the factual, and work hard (true) to tight deadlines.

No, people do. There are tons of highly professional journalists who want to do good work and write important, well-crafted, accurate stories. Who were inspired to get into the field by Watergate. Who are constantly begging their bosses to do labor-intensive features.

The economic reality is that there are not enough people who want this enough to fund it, except barely at a handful of institutions like NYTimes. Good work takes time and manpower and it doesn't sell. If management is doing its job (maximize shareholder value) then it is doing everything it can to turn its paper into Buzzfeed.

There are thousands of journalists who left their dying papers because they couldn't stand it anymore. Thousands more who were simply laid off, or took buyouts because they saw that they were going to be laid off if they didn't. My dad is one of these. They'd want nothing more than to work at a real paper again, but there aren't really real papers anymore.

Being sloppy and fast is absolutely about service to the customer. With a daily publication deadline, you can generally take the time to do it right. But the readership (and therefore management) wants stories on the internet as quickly as possible. Of course they are going to be sloppy.

(I agree with all your complaints about TV news, because that's what it's always been. In print... that's what they were forced to become when the money became tight.)

-----


Hard to see how this apparent stereotyping (a) wouldn't apply to people working in nearly every industry and (b) is relevant to this tool.

-----


I guess it's relevant because the OP is saying that they wouldn't use it because they think that facts are irrelevant.

Definitely, we'd have to look at the studies in this space, namely whether journalists cite their facts, or write their pieces using citable studies/facts, etc. So I also won't accept the OP's statement of it as fact.

Though, in my, supposedly biased, opinion I'd say journalists are quite adept at twisting facts to suit their points, and also of omitting (i.e. cherry picking) facts that support their views/points.

-----


Of course. I just hope you recognize comments like these do precisely the thing they lament: make unsourced assertions designed to advance a point of view.

"Journalism" is a broad tent. I suspect there's plenty of room for tools like this one.

-----


Hold on, you're using the fact that UK journalists ironically recycle a term that's normally used in a perjorative sense as justification for stereotyping them? What you've said can be effectively applied to any possible occupation in any field.

-----


The Naked Eye - Charles Saatchi

Outsider - Brian Sewell Autobiography

-----

More

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

Search: