Items tagged with: bad
- 3:23 : notice how he #benefits from #capitalism by writing a book, tries to skewer #Trump about it, but leaves out the part where he will #voluntarily donate the #capitalistic profits from his book to the government he worships. What's up with that? If he loves #socialism so much, why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is? Answer: he's a fraud. that's why.
- 4:49 : Instead of keeping the #benefits of your Trump #tax break, why not give those profits back?
- 5:07 The epic scoff. Mark this one down- even though he #worships at the altar of #government, he scoffs at the idea that he should give up his riches for it. Yet he feels perfectly comfortable requiring you to do so. My reaction? "5:08, baby"
- 5:16 : classic #deflection. and the socialist #dummies fall for it every time.
And down we go with this stupid old geezer playing his flute, leading the children merrily along.
A version of this article first appeared in the Harvard Business Review VC’s have just changed the ~50-year old social contract with startup employees. In doing so they may have removed one o…
Article word count: 2448
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19624164
Posted by furkansahin (karma: 236)
Post stats: Points: 149 - Comments: 100 - 2019-04-10T13:01:43Z
#HackerNews #bad #deal #gone #good #has #options #startup #stock #why
Posted on April 10, 2019 by steveblank
A version of this article first appeared in the Harvard Business Review
VC’s have just changed the ~50-year old social contract with startup employees. In doing so they may have removed one of the key incentives that made startups different from working in a large company.
For most startup employee’s startup stock options are now a bad deal.
Why Startups Offer Stock Options
In tech startups stock options were here almost from the beginning, first offered to the founders in 1957 at Fairchild Semiconductor, the first chip startup in Silicon Valley. As Venture Capital emerged as an industry in the mid 1970’s, investors in venture-funded startups began to give stock options to all their employees. On its surface this was a pretty radical idea. The investors were giving away part of their ownership of the company — not just to the founders, but to all employees. Why would they do that?
Stock options for all employees of startups served several purposes:
* Because startups didn’t have much cash and couldn’t compete with large companies in salary offers, stock options dangled in front of a potential employee were like offering a lottery ticket in exchange for a lower salary. Startup employees calculated that a) their hard work could change the odds and b) someday the stock options they were vesting might make them into millionaires. * Investors bet that by offering prospective hires a stake in the company’s future growth- with a visible time horizon of a payoff – employees would act more like owners and work harder– and that would align employee interests with the investor interests. And the bet worked. It drove the relentless “do whatever it takes” culture of 20^th century Silicon Valley. We slept under the tables, and pulled all-nighters to get to first customer ship, man the booths at trade shows or ship products to make quarterly revenue – all because it was “our” company. * While founders had more stock than the other employees, they had the same type of stock options as the rest of the employees, and they only made money when everyone else did (though a lot more of it.) Back then, when Angel/Seed investing didn’t exist, to get the company started, founders put a lot more on the line – going without a salary, mortgaging their homes etc. This “we’re all in it together” kept founders and employees aligned on incentives.
The mechanics of a stock option was a simple idea – you received an option (an offer) to buy a part of the company via common stock options (called ISOs or NSOs) at a low price (the “strike price”.) If the company was successful, you could sell it at a much higher price when the company went public (when its shares were listed on a stock exchange and could be freely traded) or was acquired.
You didn’t get to own your stock options all at once. The stock trickled out over four years, as you would “vest” 1/48^th of the option each month. And just to make sure you were in the company for at least a year, with most stock option plans, unless you stayed an entire year, you wouldn’t vest any stock.
Not everyone got the same amount of stock. The founders got most of the common stock. Early employees got a smaller percentage, and later employees received even a smaller piece – fractions of a percent – versus the double digits the founders owned.
In the 20^th century, the best companies IPO’d in 6-8 years from startup (and in the Dot-Com bubble of 1996-1999 that could be as short as 2-3 years.) Of the four startups I was in that went public, it took as long as six years and as short as three.
One other thing to note is that all employees – founders, early employees and later ones – all had the same vesting deal – four years – and no one made money on stock options until a “liquidity event” (a fancy word to mean when the company went public or got sold.) The rationale was that since there was no way for investors to make money until then, neither should anyone else. Everyone—investors, founders and startup employees—was, so to speak, in the same boat.
Startup Compensation Changes with Growth Capital – 12 Years to an IPO
Much has changed about the economics of startups in the two decades. And Mark Suster of Upfront Capital has a great post that summarizes these changes.
The first big idea is that unlike in the 20^th century when there were two phases of funding startups–Seed capital and Venture capital–today there is a new, third phase. It’s called Growth capital.
Instead of a startup going public six to eight years after it was founded to raise capital to grow the company, today companies can do $50M+ funding rounds, deferring the need for an Initial Public Offering to 10 or more years after a company is founded.
Suster points out that the longer the company stays private, the more valuable it becomes. And if during this time VC’s can hold onto their pro-rata (fancy word for what percentage of the startup they own), they can make a ton more money.
The premise of Growth capital is that if that by staying private longer, all the growth upside that went to the public markets (Wall Street) could instead be made by the private investors (the VC’s and Growth Investors.)
The three examples Suster uses – Salesforce, Google and Amazon – show how much more valuable the companies were after their IPOs. Before these three went public, they weren’t unicorns – that is their market cap was less than a billion dollars. Before these three went public, they weren’t unicorns – that is, their market cap was less than $ 1 billion. Twelve years later, Salesforce’s market cap was $18 billion, Google’s was $162 billion, and Amazon’s was $17 billion.To Suster’s point, it isn’t that startups today can’t raise money by going public, it’s that their investors can make more money by keeping them private and going public later – now 10-12 years. And currently there is an influx of capital to do that.
The emergence of Growth capital, and pushing an IPO out a decade or more, has led to a dramatic shift in the balance of power between founders and investors. For three decades, from the mid-1970s to the early 2000s, the rules of the game were that a company must become profitable and hire a professional CEO before an IPO.
That made sense. Twentieth-century companies, competing in slower-moving markets, could thrive for long periods on a single innovation. If the VCs threw out the founder, the professional CEO who stepped in could grow a company without creating something new. In that environment, replacing a founder was the rational decision. But 21st century companies face compressed technology cycles, which create the need for continuous innovation over a longer period of time. Who leads that process best? Often it is founders, whose creativity, comfort with disorder, and risk-taking are more valuable at a time when companies need to retain a startup culture even as they grow large.
With the observation that founders added value during the long runup in the growth stage, VCs began to cede compensation and board control to founders. (See the HBR story here.)
Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad
While founders in the 20^th century had more stock than the rest of their employees, they had the same type of stock options. Today, that’s not true. Rather, when a startup first forms, the founders grant themselves Restricted Stock Awards (RSA) instead of common stock options. Essentially the company sells them the stock at zero cost, and they reverse vest.
In the 20^th century founders were taking a real risk on salary, betting their mortgage and future. Today that’s less true. Founders take a lot less risk, raise multimillion-dollar seed rounds and have the ability to cash out way before a liquidity event.
Early employees take an equal risk that the company will crater, and they often work equally as hard. However, today founders own 30-50 times more than a startup’s early employees. (What has happened in founder compensation and board control has mirrored the growth in corporate CEO compensation. In the last 50 years, corporate CEO pay went from 20 times an average employee to over 300 times their compensation.)
On top of the founder/early employee stock disparity, the VC’s have moved the liquidity goal posts but haven’t moved the vesting goal posts for non-founders. Consider that the median tenure in a startup is 2 years. By year three, 50% of the employees will be gone. If you’re an early employee, today the company may not go public until eight years after you vest.
So why should non-founding employees of startups care? You’ll still own your stock, and you can leave and join another startup. There are four problems:
* First, as the company raises more money, the value of your initial stock option grant gets diluted by the new money in. (VC’s typically have pro-rata rights to keep their percentage of ownership intact, but employees don’t.) So while the VCs gain the upside from keeping a startup private, employees get the downside. * Second, when IPO’s no longer happen within the near time horizon of an employee’s tenure, the original rationale of stock options – offering prospective hires a stake in the company’s future growth with a visible time horizon of a payoff for their hard work – has disappeared. Now there’s little financial reason to stay longer than the initial grant vesting. * Third, as the fair market value of the stock rises (to what the growth investors are paying), the high exercise price isn’t attractive for hiring new employees especially if they are concerned about having to leave and pay the high exercise price in order to keep the shares. * And finally, in many high valued startups where there are hungry investors, the founders get to sell parts of their vested shares at each round of funding. (At times this opportunity is offered to all employees in a “secondary” offering.) A “secondary” usually (though not always) happens when the startup has achieved significant revenue or traction and is seen as a “leader” in their market space, on the way to an IPO or a major sale
The End of the High-Commitment/High-Performance Work System?
In the academic literature, the work environment of a startup is called a high-commitment/ high-performance work system. This is a bundle of Human Resources startup practices that include hiring, self-managing teams, rapid and decentralized decision-making, on-boarding, flexible work assignments, communication, and stock options. And there is evidence that stock options increase the success of startups.
Successful startups need highly committed employees who believe in the goals and values of the company. In exchange for sharing in the potential upside—and being valued as a critical part of the team, they’re willing to rise to the expectation of putting work and the company in front of everything else. But this level of commitment depends on whether employees perceive these practices to be fair, both in terms of the process and the outcomes.
VCs have intentionally changed the ~50-year-old social contract with startup employees. At the same time, they may have removed one of the key incentives that made startups different from working in a large company.
While unique technology or market insight is one component of a successful startup everyone agrees that attracting and retaining A+ talent differentiates the winners from the losers. In trying to keep companies private longer, but not pass any of that new value to the employees, the VC’s may have killed the golden goose.
What Should Employees Do?
In the past the founders and employees were aligned with the same type of common stock grant, and it was the VCs who got preferential stock treatment. Today, if you’re an employee you’re now are at the bottom of the stock preference pile. The founders have preferential stock treatment and the VC have preferred stock. And you’re working just as hard. Add to that all the other known negatives of a startups– no work-life balance, insane hours, inexperienced management, risk of going out of business, etc.
That said, joining a startup still has a lot of benefits for employees who are looking to work with high performance teams with little structure. Your impact likely be felt. Constant learning opportunities, responsibility and advancement are there for those who take it.
If you’re one of the early senior hires, there’s no downside of asking for the same Restricted Stock Agreements (RSAs) as the founders. And if you’re joining a larger startup, you may want to consider those who are offering restricted stock units (RSUs) rather than common stock.
What Should Investors Do?
One possibility is to replace early employee (first ~10 employees) stock options with the same Restricted Stock Agreements (RSAs) as the founders.
For later employees make sure the company offers “refresh” option grants to longer-tenured employees. Better yet, offer restricted stock units (RSUs). Restricted Stock Units are a company’s promise to give you shares of the company’s stock. Unlike a stock option, which always has a strike (purchase) price higher than $0, an RSU is an option with a $0 purchase price. The lower the strike price, the less you have to pay to own a share of company stock. Like stock options, RSU’s vest.
But to keep employees engaged, they ought to be allowed buy their vested RSU stock and sell it every time the company raises a new round of funding.
* Venture Capital structures were set up for a world in which successful companies exited in 6-8 years and didn’t raise too much capital * Venture capital growth funds are now giving startups the cash they would have received at an IPO * “Growth Capital” moved the need for an IPO out another five years * This allows VCs to capture the increase in market cap in the company * It may have removed the incentive for non-founders to want to work in a startup versus a large company * As stock options with four-year vesting are no longer a good deal * Investors and Founders have changed the model to their advantage, but no has changed the model for early employees * VCs need to consider a new stock incentive model – RSA’s for the first key hires and then RSU’s – Restricted Stock Units for everyone else * Large companies now have an opportunity to attract some of the talent that previously went elsewhere
Filed under: Venture Capital |
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 132 - Loop: 245 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 73
Nassim Nicholas Taleb has overplayed his hand this time and is left looking, well, klueless.Photograph by Salzburg Global Seminar…
Article word count: 1648
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19617578
Posted by sandwall (karma: 306)
Post stats: Points: 150 - Comments: 178 - 2019-04-09T18:25:21Z
#HackerNews #against #bad #case #math #nassim #nate #silver #talebs
Nassim Nicholas Taleb has overplayed his hand this time and is left looking, well, klueless.Photograph by Salzburg Global Seminar / Flickr
Since the midterm elections, a feud has been raging on Twitter between Nate Silver, founder of FiveThirtyEight, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb, hedge-fund-manager-turned-mathematical-philosopher and author of The Black Swan. It began, late last year, with Silver boasting about the success of his election models and Taleb shooting back that Silver doesn’t “know how math works.” Silver said Taleb was “consumed by anger” and hadn’t had any new ideas since 2001. The argument has gotten personal, with Silver calling Taleb an “intellectual-yet-idiot” (an insult taken from Taleb’s own book) and Taleb calling Silver “klueless” and “butthurt.” Here is a recap of what they’re fighting about so you can know who’s right (Silver, mostly) and who’s wrong (Taleb).
The origin of Taleb’s ire can be found in Silver’s success since 2008—and his some-time failures. As I described in Nautilus last month, evaluating probabilistic election forecasts can be conceptually slippery, made especially difficult by the counterintuitive properties of mathematical probability. Historically, Silver has received considerable credit, probably too much, for “calling” elections correctly. As his most recent analysis (incorporating at least some of my suggestions!) shows, the more meaningful questions are: 1) How often does something that he gives an n percent chance to actually happen? and 2) How bold are his predictions, in the sense of probabilities being closer to 100 percent rather than long-run averages? In both respects, his models appear to be doing pretty well.
Yet Taleb maintains that Silver (whom he has taken to calling “Bullshit Nate”) is “ignorant of probability,” a “fraud,” and “a total impostor.” Why?
Critiquing—often rudely—the ways people think about uncertainty is the essence of Taleb’s brand. A thesis repeated in his books, backed up by his strategies as an investor, is that we understate the uncertainty concerning rare and extreme events in complex systems. By modeling randomness with assumptions gleaned when conditions are mild, we expose ourselves to unanticipated crises like market crashes. But a savvy investor, taking advantage of a market under-pricing those risks, can make a profit betting on the extremes.
A “black swan”-like critique of the FiveThirtyEight forecasts is likely possible and even valuable.
His complaint is that Silver’s forecast probabilities, particularly in 2016, fluctuated too much leading up to the election. Raising the stakes even more, Taleb has repeatedly hate-tweeted a paper of his, saying Silver’s forecasts were guilty of “stark errors” that, if committed on Wall Street, would have allowed investors to clean him out by means of what’s called “arbitrage.” Taleb, drawing on his financial background, proposed his own model that he claimed was immune to such an attack.
Why does Taleb think finance has anything to say about election forecasting? It has to do with the sometimes-complex relationship between probabilities and prices. Imagine we were placing bets on an event, say, Trump being impeached, in the form of lottery tickets that pay $1 if he is. Suppose I’m willing to pay up to $0.25 for such a ticket. Financial theory can’t say whether that price is right or wrong, but it can say that, were I then offered the complementary ticket paying $1 if he isn’t impeached, the only rationally coherent price I could pay for it is $0.75, because if my price were, say, $0.77 instead, then someone could earn a sure profit of $0.02 by selling me both bets for $1.02. Similarly, if I am required to offer the bets at the same price I quote, then any price less than $0.75 would allow someone to earn a riskless profit by buying both from me.
Today we would call any one of these combinations of bets an arbitrage, meaning an investment with no probability of loss and some probability of profit—a theoretically infinite money pump. The general assumption is that real arbitrage opportunities are, at most, very short-lived, because market forces act immediately to shut off the pump.
Taleb says that Silver’s probabilities would make him a target for arbitrage if they gave the price he would offer on an election bet. Unlike the static version we just considered, the arbitrage would happen as time unfolds. Maybe an investor could “buy” an election forecast when it’s cheap (it claims a low probability of a given candidate being elected) and then “sell” it when the price goes up.
Taleb argues the only right way to do election forecasting is to use the derivative-pricing techniques from mathematical finance. Derivatives are certain kinds of bets on the performance of an underlying security, like a stock. In this case, the “stock” is the voter support for a political candidate, and the bet is on whether that support will exceed a winning threshold on election day, similar to a “binary option” in the financial world.
So, should Silver be scared of losing millions of dollars if he takes Taleb’s bait? In short, maybe but not certainly.
In the 1930s, the Italian statistician and actuary Bruno de Finetti noticed something interesting about these kinds of bets: In order to avoid arbitrage, the prices must obey the same equations as the mathematical rules of probability, meaning such relationships as Price [A]+ Price[NOT A] = 1, and so on. Taleb’s arbitrage-through-time was also known to de Finetti. Suppose, for example, on Monday a forecaster assigns a 40 percent probability to the event CLOUDY = “Tuesday’s sky will be cloudy” and a 30 percent probability to the event CLOUDY & RAINY = “Tuesday’s sky will be cloudy, and it will rain,” and these probabilities are interpreted as prices.
Then we ask the forecaster/bookie: “If we wake up tomorrow and the sky is cloudy (and we have no other new information), what price will you give us for a bet that it will also rain?” De Finetti showed that the only arbitrage-free price for this conditional bet “RAINY GIVEN CLOUDY” is the one consistent with Bayes’ rule of conditional probability:
Price[RAINY GIVEN CLOUDY] = Price[CLOUDY & RAINY] / Price
Taleb’s wires get crossed, and as a result his argument borders on nonsense.
In this example, the price should be (0.3)/(0.4) = 0.75. If the forecaster gave too high a price, say 0.90, then through a clever combination of transactions:
* BUY a bet of $1 on CLOUDY & RAINY * BUY a bet of $0.75 on NOT CLOUDY * SELL a bet of $0.15 on CLOUDY * If we see that it is cloudy, SELL a bet of $1 on RAINY
we could make a profit of $0.06 no matter what scenario unfolds. We could just as well make that $6 million, or however much we like, by increasing the amounts until we had emptied the forecaster’s bank account.
Derivative-pricing in a consistent way that avoids arbitrage is a difficult problem (worthy of a Nobel prize)! An extended form of de Finetti’s argument is at the heart of the modern solution, in what’s now called the “Fundamental Theorem of Asset Pricing”: if prices are consistent, then they form a set of probabilities, meaning the equations of probabilities are satisfied.
Unfortunately, Taleb’s wires get crossed here, and as a result his argument borders on nonsense. The converse to the statement above is also true: if prices form a set of probabilities, then they are consistent. Since Silver’s forecasts begin with probability models, it’s safe to assume they obey all the rules, including Bayes’, and would be arbitrage-free. Taleb’s procedure is therefore sufficient but not necessary, making his choice of model doubly unnecessary.
Taleb’s real discomfort with Silver’s bouncing probabilities is less about arbitrage than it is about the relationship between past and future volatility. As I illustrated last month, even for a simple “random walk” model of elections—where a candidate’s support goes up or down every day according to a coin-flip—if the past and future polling volatilities are the same, then a candidate’s chance of winning will have the same amount of variability whether the polls are fairly stable or bouncing around. In both cases, the chance of winning may fluctuate dramatically. Again, since these are exact probabilities computed in the same way Taleb’s are, there is no possibility for arbitrage.
In order for Taleb’s desired steady forecast probabilities to manifest, the uncertainty in the future polls would need to always be greater than the observed volatility of polls in the past. This is a valid “black swan”-like criticism that he could have made but didn’t: that we should not understate future uncertainty given our past experience observing mild fluctuations in the polls; otherwise we might get blindsided by an event like former director of the F.B.I. James Comey’s letter to Congress.
In mathematical finance, derivatives depend on a traded asset like a stock with a known market price. What’s uncertain is whether that price will reach the threshold necessary for a derivative to pay off. In the world of election forecasting, the “price” before election day can only be guessed at based on polling data, so there is uncertainty both around how voters’ opinions will change and also what those opinions are at any given time. Figuring out the latter is what Silver’s models excel at, and this complication makes the whole framework of derivative-pricing arguably inapplicable here, which is no great loss since there was no need for it in the first place.
A “black swan”-like critique of the FiveThirtyEight forecasts is likely possible and even valuable. It may be that investors like Taleb, who think Silver’s probabilities are wrong, could earn a profit on average by betting on them—like taking advantage of a casino offering the wrong odds—but they could not claim those profits were risk-free. But by accusing Silver of arbitrage and trying to apply his financial expertise to elections, Taleb has overplayed his hand this time and is left looking, well, klueless.
Aubrey Clayton is a mathematician living in Boston.
Get the Nautilus newsletter
The newest and most popular articles delivered right to your inbox!
WATCH: This astrophysicist priced the planet Kepler-186f at $655.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 159 - Loop: 387 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 47
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19504611
Posted by myinnerbanjo (karma: 3928)
Post stats: Points: 117 - Comments: 51 - 2019-03-27T18:56:08Z
#HackerNews #amazon #bad #businesses #look #making #microsoft #state #supports #tax
In this era of corporations using blackmail and threats to win sweetheart tax deals, Microsoft is making waves at the state Capitol in Olympia with a far more unusual demand.
Tax us more, the company is telling lawmakers.
“I don’t know if I’ve heard of this happening before; it’s not ringing any bells,” said Rep. Drew Hansen, D-Bainbridge Island, when I asked if a big business has ever come to the state Legislature proposing a sizable tax on itself to help pay for a government program.
“I have to say, I didn’t expect it at all,” echoed Rep. Gerry Pollet, D-Seattle, who has warred with Microsoft before, and lost, over that company’s extensive state tax breaks. “All of a sudden they’re down here offering to pay for the obvious needs of the state.”
The bill, introduced Monday by Hansen and co-sponsored by Pollet among others, is this year’s big push in higher education. It would pour about a billion dollars over the next four years into a “workforce education account,” to be spent on more financial aid as well as more degree slots in high-demand subjects such as computer science, engineering and nursing.
Nothing too novel about that: State higher ed and business leaders have been clamoring for something like this for years.
But when the talk turned to how to pay for it, everybody usually ran out of the room.
The premise now is to put a surcharge on businesses that benefit the most from a highly skilled workforce. That means high-tech of course, as well as professional services firms.
“Our model is the old apprenticeship programs used by electricians and plumbers,” Hansen said.
The bill proposes increasing the state business and occupation tax by 20 percent on about 40 categories of technical services, such as telecom, engineering, medical and finance. And by 33 percent on tech firms with more than $25 billion in annual revenue.
But here’s where this goes off the charts, into politically unheard-of territory. It mandates a top rate, a whopping 67 percent business tax increase, for those “advanced computing businesses” with “worldwide gross revenue of more than one hundred billion dollars” per year.
There are only two businesses headquartered here that fit that rarefied description. And one of them, Microsoft, is the tax’s biggest booster.
“Let’s ask the largest companies in the tech sector, which are the largest employers of high-skilled talent, to do a bit more,” Microsoft President Brad Smith wrote in a recent Op-Ed in The Seattle Times about this idea.
Say what? No one in corporate America ever says “tax me, tax me first.” Let alone 67 percent more.
I don’t know what’s gotten into Microsoft lately. Remember when it was the Death Star, monopolistically glowering over technopolis and threatening to cut off the air supply of competitors and regulators alike? Now it’s all grown up, quietly adding to its Redmond campus like a homebody and offering to help out its neighbors, such as with a $500 million affordable housing fund announced in January.
Sure these initiatives are partly self-serving, as they’re focused on two of Microsoft’s biggest needs (trained, qualified employees, and places for them to live). State business taxes also are a relatively minor part of the company’s vast balance sheet.
But that other company that would also be most on the hook? Apparently it isn’t so thrilled to have been volunteered for civic duty by one of its chief rivals.
“Amazon was surprised to be included in such a public ‘hey, let’s do this’ by Microsoft,” said Rep. Gael Tarleton, D-Seattle, who said she heard that lament directly from an Amazon lobbyist.
Added Pollet: “Amazon has groused in meetings down here that Microsoft is doing this mostly as a way of making Amazon look bad.”
Well, I’ll be damned: A corporation outflanking the competition not by threatening to move or fleecing the taxpayers for subsidies, but by doing good! What in the world will become of us if that catches on?
Well played, Microsoft — for your company, and for the state. Your move, Amazon.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 95 - Loop: 209 - Rank min: 80 - Author rank: 50
I have never been a proponent of cloud computing [defined as the “cloud” being Not On Your Own Platform (#NOYOP)].
The reasons were:
- Criminal hacking,
- (even your own) state-sponsored criminal hacking,
- #Idiot-moves — like the one below; which can happen if You do not control Your data.
Database of Over 198 Million U.S. Voters Left Exposed On Unsecured Server
by The Hackers News
#database #electionhacking #exposed #hackingnews #left #million #over #server #unsecured #usvoter #voters
Database of Over 198 Million U.S. Voters Left Exposed On Unsecured Server
Over 198 Million U.S. Voters Records Left Exposed On An Unsecured #Amazon #S3 #Server
Verizon Wireless Internal Credentials, Infrastructure Details Exposed in Amazon S3 Bucket
#amazon #amazons3 #amazons3leaks #amazonwebservices #bobdiachenko #bucket #credentialleaks #credentials #details #exposed #infrastructure #internal #kromtechsecurity #privacy #verizon #verizonwireless #wireless
Verizon Wireless Internal Credentials, Infrastructure Details Exposed in Amazon S3 Bucket
Verizon is the latest company to leak confidential data through an exposed Amazon S3 bucket.
Yahoo says all 3 billion accounts hacked in 2013 data theft
#business #france24 #internetcybercrime #news
Yahoo says all 3 billion accounts hacked in 2013 data theft - France 24
Yahoo on Tuesday said that all three billion of its accounts were hacked in a 2013 data theft, tripling its earlier estimate of the size of the largest breach in history and sharply increasing the legal exposure of its new owner, Verizon.
I have dis-avowed the cloud since the first trumpeting of this marketing-oriented name emerged.
I have my clients still on dedicated machines, or on VMs – and Will NOT use:
- AWS (with it’s 600-million dollar CIA contract);
- Azure (with Microsoft being the #1 entrant into the NSA’s spying program);
- or iCloud for any reason.
People (read that: Companies) who put things in the cloud damn well deserve what they will get.
But God bless 'em anyway.
Every Single American Household Exposed in Massive Leak
Yet another Amazon S3 cloud storage misconfiguration has affected 123 million Americans, across billions of data points.
Hacker News Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15965060
Degraded performance after forced reboot due to AWS instance maintenance
Hacker News Comments:
Oh, the reasons that proprietary-run Clouds are bad,
just keep coming.
Security flaw in CPU’s breaks isolation between cloud containers
Two, in one day
Hardcoded Backdoor Found In WD My Cloud NAS With Username “MyDlink”
In yet another revelation of severe loopholes, a security researcher
James Bercegay from Gulftech has discovered a backdoor in some models of the My Cloud NAS (Network-attached storage) drive family, manufactured by Western Digital. According to the blog post, the vulnerabilities,which include a hardcoded backdoor, can be used to access files even on a […]
The post Hardcoded Backdoor Found In WD My Cloud NAS With https://fossbytes.com/hardcoded-backdoor-wd-mycloud-devices-username-mydlink/
"You trust the cloud? HAHAHAHA
What surprised me a little was how few journalists paid attention to the fact that Meltdown in particular breaks the isolation between containers and Virtual Machines - making it quite dangerous to run your code in places like Amazon S3. Meltdown means: anything you have ran on Amazon S3 or competing clouds from Google and Microsoft has been exposed to other code running on the same systems.
And storage isn’t per-se safe, as the systems handling the storage just might also be used for running apps from other customers - who then thus could have gotten at that data. I wrote a bit more about this in an opinion post for Nextcloud.
We don’t know if any breaches happened, of course. We also don’t know that they didn’t.
That’s one of my main issues with the big public cloud providers: we KNOW they hide breaches from us. All the time. For YEARS. Yahoo did particularly nasty, but was it really such an outlier? Uber hid data stolen from 57 million users for a year, which came out just November last year."
Leaky Amazon S3 Bucket Exposes Personal Data of 12,000 Social Media Influencers
via [ThreatPost](@Threatpost (unofficial))
Gojdue Variant Eludes Microsoft, Google Cloud Protection, Researchers Say
Under Armour App Breach Exposes 150 Million Records
A breach in a database for MyFitnessPal exposes information on 150
Under Armour App Breach Exposes 150 Million Records
LA County Nonprofit Exposes 3.2M PII Files via Unsecured S3 Bucket
A misconfiguration accidentally compromised credentials, email
addresses, and 200,000 rows of notes describing abuse and suicidal
Honda India Left Details of 50,000 Customers Exposed on an AWS S3 Server
Honda Car India has left the personal details of over 50,000 users
exposed on two public Amazon S3 buckets, according to a report published today Kromtech Security. […]
(and remember with this one, that fossbytes is generally pro-establishment)
Google Groups Are Leaking Your Sensitive Emails: Here’s How To Fix It
If you are using Google Groups, you need to check your privacy settings right now and make sure that the configuration doesn’t leak any sensitive information. This message comes from Kenna Security which found that nearly one-third of 9,600 public Google Groups
leaked sensitive information in emails sent through the platform. The
security firm found such public […]
The post Google Groups Are Leaking Your Sensitive Emails: Here’s How To Fix It appeared first on Fossbytes.
(…in perhaps one of the biggest of cloud capers, we have …)
What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub
According to Bloomberg Microsoft is said to have agreed to buy GitHub. GitHub which reportedly has been losing money being acquired is a major development because of its central role in the…
Article word count: 687
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17225599
Posted by okket (karma: 23039)
Post stats: Points: 128 - Comments: 148 - 2018-06-04T08:17:00Z
#HackerNews #buying #github #microsoft #what #with #wrong
According to Bloomberg Microsoft is said to have agreed to buy GitHub. GitHub which reportedly has been losing money being acquired is a major development because of its central role in the development of many open and closed source projects.
For the uninitiated here is what GitHub does in a nutshell: GitHub allows computer programmers from around the world to conveniently collaborate on projects, share bug reports and fix those bugs and allows the administration of some project documentation. The company provides this service for free to entities that provide their code for free to the world and for ‘closed source’ projects there is a fee to be paid. GitHub is in essence a friendly wrapper around Git, an open source version control system written by Linus Torvalds (of Linux fame) and many others. Git already does decentralized repository hosting out of the box but it does not support any kind of discovery method, bug tracking or documentation features, GitHub built a community of programmers around Git and many open source contributors consider GitHub too big to fail.
Companies that are too big to fail and that lose money are a dangerous combination, people have warned about GitHub becoming as large as it did as problematic because it concentrates too much of the power to make or break the open source world in a single entity, moreso because there were valid questions about GitHubs financial viability. The model that GitHub has - sell their services to closed source companies but provide the service for free for open source groups - is only a good one if the closed source companies bring in enough funds to sustain the model. Some sort of solution should have been found - preferably in collaboration with the community -, not an ‘exit’ to one of the biggest sharks in the tank.
So, here is what is wrong with this deal and why anybody active in the open source community should be upset that Microsoft is going to be the steward of this large body of code. For starters, Microsoft has a very long history of abusing its position vis-a-vis open source and other companies. I’m sure you’ll be able to tell I’m a cranky old guy by looking up the dates to some of these references, but ‘new boss, same as the old boss’ applies as far as I’m concerned. Yes, the new boss is a nicer guy but it’s the same corporate entity. Some concrete examples of the things Microsoft have done:
- Abuse of their de facto monopoly position to squash competition, including abuse of the DD process to gain insight into a competitors software
- Bankrolling the SCO Lawsuit that ran for many years in order to harm Linux in the marketplace
- Abuse of their monopoly position to unfairly compete with other browser vendors, including Netscape
- Subverting open standards with a policy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
- The recent Windows 10 Telemetry abuse
- The acquisition of Skype, after which all the peer-to-peer traffic was routed through Microsoft, essentially allowing them to snoop on the conversations. To pre-empt the technical counter argument that this was done to improve the service: It only improved the service for some edge cases, for everybody else the service got worse because of the extra round-trip latency. So if that was the real reason then you’d have expected to see the traffic routed to the central servers only if one of those edge cases was detected.
- Unfair advantage over competitors by using internal APIs for applications unavailable for competing products
- Tied-sales and bundling
- Abuse of Patents
I’ve deleted my GitHub account, I’ll find a way to replace it and if you’re halfway clever so should you. Foxes may change their coats, they don’t change their nature.
HN Submission/Discussion If you read this far you should probably follow me on twitter:
Honda Leaked Over 50,000 Users Personal Information of it’s Honda Connect App
Honda Car India leaked over 50,000 users Personal information of it’s Honda Connect App which is stored in the publicly unsecured Amazon AWS S3 Buckets. Experts recently discovered two public unsecured Inside of the AWS Bucket contains an unprotected database which maintained by Honda Connect App. Honda-Connect is a smartphone app that boasts that it gives the user […]
The post Honda Leaked Over 50,000 Users Personal Information of it’s Honda Connect App appeared first on GBHackers On Security.
92.3 million users this time.
It is quite hard just to keep up reporting these failures…
MyHeritage Alerts Users to Data Breach
A researcher found email addresses and hashed passwords of nearly 92.3 million users stored on a server outside MyHeritage.
"MyHeritage, a platform designed to investigate family history, learned of a data breach on June 4, 2018. It reports the incident affected email addresses and hashed passwords of nearly 92.3 million users who signed up for the site before and including Oct. 26, 2017, the date of the incident.
A security researcher discovered a file named “myheritage” containing email addresses and passwords on a private server outside the site. Further analysis found the file was legitimate, with the data originating from Myheritage. No other data was detected on the server, and there was no evidence of account compromise. MyHeritage handles billing through third parties and stores sensitive data such as DNA and family trees on segregated servers with added security."
Ticketfly cyberattack exposed data belonging to 27 million accounts
#accounts #belonging #cyberattack #data #exposed #million #ticketfly
Financial information is thought to be safe.
"A little-known Florida company may have exposed the personal data of nearly every American adult, according to a new report.
Wired reported Wednesday that Exactis, a Palm Coast, Fla.-based marketing and data-aggregation company, had exposed a database containing almost 2 terabytes of data, containing nearly 340 million individual records, on a public server. That included records of 230 million consumers and 110 million businesses.
“It seems like this is a database with pretty much every U.S. citizen in it,” security researcher Vinny Troia, who discovered the breach earlier this month, told Wired. “I don’t know where the data is coming from, but it’s one of the most comprehensive collections I’ve ever seen,” he said."
A massive cache of law enforcement personnel data has leaked
#cache #data #enforcement #law #leaked #massive #personnel
Exclusive: The data revealed that some police departments are unable to respond in an active shooter event.
Simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior.
Article word count: 1269
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19415309
Posted by pm24601 (karma: 1746)
Post stats: Points: 96 - Comments: 110 - 2019-03-17T17:58:50Z
#HackerNews #and #bad #believing #does #doesnt #effects #exist #has #meritocracy
By Clifton Mark6 minute Read
Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events.
Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
[Image: kristo74/iStock]Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.
This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best.
According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
[Image: kristo74/iStock]In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.
The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50.
One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.”
By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill).
Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
[Image: kristo74/iStock]This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.
Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just.
However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there.
This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit.
Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate.
Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 100 - Loop: 128 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 19
An explanation of why you should favor procedural programming over Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).
Article word count: 33
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19407599
Posted by tartoran (karma: 940)
Post stats: Points: 107 - Comments: 106 - 2019-03-16T13:01:45Z
#HackerNews #2016 #bad #object-oriented #programming #video
Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
An explanation of why you should favor procedural programming over Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 106 - Loop: 348 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 81
The development team’s capabilities for battling deadlines are fairly restricted, yet they end up committing to them in day-to-day life…
Article word count: 1818
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19346958
Posted by ingve (karma: 99528)
Post stats: Points: 126 - Comments: 47 - 2019-03-09T16:45:28Z
#HackerNews #and #are #bad #deadlines #for #sprints #you
Go to the profile of Antti
The development team’s capabilities for battling deadlines are fairly restricted
In a software development project, it’s important to find a suitable process for the project. A good process helps developers, managers, customers and users. A great process should improve the day-to-day life for everyone involved and help avoid generating problems or health issues.
In this article, I’m mainly focusing on fairly long agile projects that continue over multiple years, though these principles or opinions may apply to shorter projects as well.
A software project team typically consists of a mix of software developers, UX designers, graphic designers and a product owner. The roles can be roughly split in two: development and product management. Product management steers the development team towards building the “right stuff” at the correct time and attempts to ensure the continued relevance of the product. The development team, on the other hand, decides how to build the “right stuff” and how to deliver it. In addition to this, the development team is responsible for ensuring the software is usable and for validating the overall quality of the product.
* Product management: What should we build? When should we build it? * Development: How should we build it? How should we deliver it?
During recent years, agile development has been rising in popularity. It also made SCRUM famous as a process method, so much so that some use it as a synonym for agile development.
One of the key elements in SCRUM is sprints. A sprint is a time-boxed iteration of development (usually lasting from one to three weeks), during which the team focuses on a set of tasks planned at the start of the sprint. At the sprint planning, the team takes the highest priority items from the backlog (work queue mostly managed by product management), plans them, and commits to an amount of work they think they can deliver. At the end of the sprint, there’s usually a review meeting about what was done.
This system generates multiple short deadlines for the project. In essence, sprints force deadlines into people’s everyday work regardless of the length of the project.
This commitment to sprints generates multiple problems. In order to commit to the amount of work, the team now needs to assess, for instance, the following factors:
* How much effort goes into each task? * Is someone going to be on a personal leave during this time? * Is everyone 100 percent committed to project-related work or are there some other responsibilities on the side? Training? This week or always? * How many sick days are there going to be in the sprint? * How many bugs is the team going to come across during the sprint? How difficult will they be to solve? * Is someone leaving or joining the team? * Are there any company events during the sprint? * Are national holidays going to affect the sprint? * Are there any hardware issues going to come up?
While these assessments can be made easier with statistics: “Generally, we get this much work done per sprint”, and so forth. The bottom line is this: There’s a wide range of variables that cause the output to vary over different sprints. Sometimes you hit the goal and sometimes you don’t. But you do have a goal, a deadline.
Some think that sprint commitment is not necessary (disregarding SCRUM process to some extent) and that sprint should not be thought as a deadline. I like the idea in theory, but in practice, people end up confusing sprints to deadlines regardless of the intention. Especially when sprint commitment is supposed to be an instrumental part of the SCRUM process by default.
Even the semantic idea of the word “sprint” is ill-advised for a long project. It suggests a mentality of a 100-meter sprint running to do whatever it takes to get to the finish line as fast as possible. A long software project is more accurately compared to a 50-kilometer run that is won with a steady pace, and during which overexertion at any midpoint ruins the whole run or sends you to a hospital. In long projects, people might not even know where the finish line is. Sprint seems more like a marketing term that shouldn’t be used as a term for a method of working in the first place.
Deadlines can have multiple effects on humans. Especially when they are closing in. Some of them include health risks such as increased stress, loss of brain cells, lessening creativity, digestion issues, headaches, etc. When deadlines are closing in, the human body may eventually feel threat to its survival and trigger the fight or flight response. (Source: Psychology Today, The Dark Side of Deadlines)
Other effects include motivational enticement. There are studies that show deadlines can have a positive effect on work motivation. I would argue that there are other more worthwhile and less damaging motivational enticements in existence as well. Just to list a few to get you started:
* Creating an awesome product * Delivering good quality * Improving people’s lives * Helping people with their problems * Making people happy
Deadlines can even undermine the motivation generated by other motivational enticements. (Source: Psychology Today, How deadlines can be murder on motivation)
Additionally, the stress caused by deadlines “sets up a vicious feedback loop and keeps a person dependent on deadlines like a caffeine junkie reaching for their morning cup of joe.” For some people, meeting a deadline gives such an adrenaline rush that next time they may put off a task until they get physical symptoms of the fight or flight response. (Source: Psychology Today, The Dark Side of Deadlines)
How many times have you heard these explanations before?
* We had to skip tests… * We had to add technical debt… * We could not fix the code… * We had to do it quickly… * We couldn’t design it properly… * We had to take a shortcut…
Too often these sentences end with …because we didn’t have enough time. Why didn’t people have time? There’s probably multiple reasons, but in the end, it often comes back to deadlines, right?
People will try to cut corners, produce lower quality and take risks while disregarding their own health to meet deadlines. (Source: ISHN, Deadlines can erode safety and promote risk-taking)
As mentioned earlier, the variables often lead to unpredictability and the project ends up missing the deadline. So what can be done now?
* Cut corners (lowers quality) * Work overtime * Skip or forbid team other responsibilities like training * Forbid personal leave * Reduce the number of features * Refine the feature scope * Hire more team members * Move the deadline
Cutting corners usually ends up damaging product quality and generating loads of technical debt. This type of debt has a very high interest rate, and the project will have to pay it sooner or later. The worst case scenario is that it causes bugs in the production environment, which can be extremely costly.
Making people work overtime or denying leave (essentially meaning rest), on the other hand, might lead to a range of health issues and other problems in life management.
Denying or skipping other responsibilities, such as employee training, is another form, a more slowly moving type of technical debt: It will eventually result in people with outdated skills and a project that will not benefit from new skills.
The development team’s capabilities for battling deadlines are fairly restricted
In simple terms:
The tools the development team has for combatting the deadline are unsustainable:
* Cutting corners (essentially lowering quality) * Working overtime * Skipping training or other responsibilities
Product management controls the only sustainable options:
* Reducing the number of features * Refining the feature scope * Hiring more team members * Moving the deadline
The above categorization means that management could resort to the unsustainable options as well, if required. I believe that it is far better if management makes that choice knowingly rather than have individuals within the team make this choice on their own. These individual responses to deadlines are exactly at the core of the issue: they generate invisible problems that jump at you unpredictably.
Instead of SCRUM, there’s another similar process called Kanban (Lean development) that does not have the concept of sprints and time-boxing, because in Kanban, they are considered a waste.
In Kanban, there’s only the “stuff” to be done, and the development team should do it in the order prioritized by product management. It’s a very continuous process that fits naturally into long development projects. There is no need to use time on discussing commitments, dates, deadlines or anything related to sprints. More importantly, the system does not generate deadlines or deadline-like systems so the stress of having deadlines is removed. Rather, when a task gets done, the development team takes the next task from the top of the backlog and so on.
The Kanban (Lean) process removes a number of unnatural things that SCRUM, in turn, entails. For instance:
* What happens when a sprint is completed early? * What happens when a sprint is not completed in time? * What happens when bugs emerge during a sprint? * What if we can’t plan enough at a sprint planning? * What if we plan too much at sprint planning? * What if we want to release before the end of the sprint? * What happens if product management really wants to re-prioritize during a sprint? * What happens if everything is not ready for development at the start of the sprint?
These questions can be answered with more processes or steps and guidance. In Kanban however, many of the questions are not even applicable because they are not necessary in order for us to get the project done — it’s just noise.
Deadlines have a lot of negative impacts on human health, but some say they are a must-have for work motivation and for project organization. I argue that there are other motivational enticements and other ways to organize projects than deadlines and sprints. This takes me to my main argument, which is that the negative impacts of deadlines and sprints outweigh the positive impacts.
SCRUM as a popular agile framework brings us a bunch of deadlines to our day-to-day life in form of sprints. Teams end up committing into sprint content, with no sustainable tools to manage it. Some say sprint commitment is not necessary, and a sprint should not be thought as a deadline. I’m inclined to agree, but then again, I ask you this: Why have it in the first place?
Sprints and time-boxing add a lot of artificial noise to a project. That noise has few major undesirable side-effects, the biggest ones being the possible life-threatening health issues and unsustainable teams and projects. In the end, there are other ways to work (like Kanban) that do not have this noise and give more flexibility in return, too.
If the stakeholders and product owners are not ready to pull the plug on deadlines, product management might be left to play with them on some level. Development teams should not be dealing with deadlines, since they don’t possess the tools to manage them. Rather, the team should focus on the delivery of the tasks and make sure they are delivered in the order that product management sees fit. One could think of it as a layer of protection for the development team. In this case, a team might need to give out estimates on how long each task takes, but that’s still very different from committing to a deadline.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 99 - Loop: 253 - Rank min: 80 - Author rank: 128
#australien #bad #boy #breakingnews #dacapulco #kyrgios #news #quot #roi #tennis
C'est le visage fermé que Nick Kyrgios a célébré sa victoire au tournoi d’Acapulco, qui sonne comme une revanche pour le "bad boy" australien, critiqué pour son arrogance et son comportement anti-sportif par le public mexicain.
posted by pod_feeder
#Bad #Actors - #Gibberfish
You may begin to see this guy popping up
Brian Ó 🐟
Please don’t share posts by Nazis.
#Brian Ó 🐟 is the owner of this -> on Gibberfish.
He wants to control who has access to social media.
JUST LIKE THE COMMUNIST CHINESE.
He also wishes #George #Soros would fund his GibberFish org.
(Yes, that George Soros).
He seeks to "on board" #newhere users through a chat where he will control the message.
Something which has diaspora HQ support.
Remember that the #Nazis began as the #Brownshirts; who beat people in the streets who did not agree with them (just as #ANTIFA does today). And threw out anyone who disagreed with them. ...If not directly putting them into concentration camps or killing them.
Read my posts.
Determine if I am a Nazi on your own.
Do so for everyone that he posts this about.
We all might be surprised who the real #Nazi is.
Well, I won't be surprised.
fun fact: satan wants to be evil all day long… but still demands to be loved. how is supposed to work? You expect the people you destroy to love you? #wtf
#philosophy #philosophie #MutZurWahrheit #SystemPhilosophy #SystemPhilosophie #satan #angel #good #evil #bad #truth #lies #wtf #father #mother #cancer
Originally posted at: https://declaration-of-happyness.org/angel-died-of-cancer-satan-survived-up-to-now/
Storytime | My Immortal - Internet Historian
A video adaptation of one of the worst fanfictions ever made… it is a constant stream of incoherent bullshit, and after the 15 minute mark I couldn’t stop laughing XD
The main character and/or writer reminds me of a bitch I used to know back in highschool… thankfully I haven’t seen her since christmas last year… (O_O) =P
#video #humor #funny #story #joke #bad #fail #confusing #entertaining #vampire #magic #harryPotter #fanfiction #fiction #writing #reading
More employers say they're being "ghosted," the Federal Reserve noted recently. That's when a worker just stops coming to work and is impossible to contact. The strong economy may help explain it.
Article word count: 1054
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19000756
Posted by DontGiveTwoFlux (karma: 325)
Post stats: Points: 108 - Comments: 118 - 2019-01-25T18:25:43Z
\#HackerNews #are #bad #bosses #employees #ghosting #hot #labor #market #some
Even the Federal Reserve has noticed ghosting, which it defines as "a situation where a worker stops coming to work without notice and then is impossible to contact."
Planet Flem/Getty Images
If youʼve ever applied for a job, chances are you never heard back from some prospective employers — even after an interview. But now that jobs are plentiful, it seems the tables have turned on employers.
In a report last month, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago said a number of employers reported being "ghosted" by workers — thatʼs right, like how a Tinder date might stop answering your texts.
The Fed defined ghosting on the job as "a situation where a worker stops coming to work without notice and then is impossible to contact."
Thereʼs no official data on ghosting at work. But analysts say the uptick probably has something to do with the low unemployment rate and a hot labor market thatʼs given workers more job options.
Workers such as Kris say thereʼs another reason: being disrespected on the job.
Several years ago, when he was in college, Kris worked as a lifeguard at a water park in Cincinnati. After about a year, his bosses promoted him to a managerial role and promised him a raise.
His new duties were more than just keeping an eye on the water. Kris managed the daily schedule for all lifeguards and tested the waterʼs chemical levels. Each morning when he opened the park, he would be the first one down its waterslides — testing them for safety.
More than six months into his new position, Krisʼ paycheck remained the same — $8 an hour instead of the $10 he was promised.
"Week after week I would ask about it," he says, "and management would keep making excuses."
Then came a corporate announcement. Krisʼ managers said they would cut employeesʼ pay by 10 percent due to financial difficulties. Kris felt slighted — now his pay was less than what he started out earning, despite his managerial duties.
"I decided, OK, if they really donʼt care about me and they donʼt value me and what I do for the water park, then maybe Iʼll just stop doing it," he says.
So on a busy summer day, Kris didnʼt show up to open the park. He let the flood of subsequent texts and voicemails from his managers go unanswered. No one else with his level of training was able to come in that morning.
"I ultimately caused the shutdown of the water park for that Friday," Kris says.
He estimates he cost the park between $15,000 and $20,000 in customer revenue "for what would have been a yearly raise of a few thousand dollars."
Soon after he ghosted, Kris landed a job making more money as a pizza delivery driver. He now works for a Fortune 500 company. Though Kris doesnʼt regret ghosting, he doesnʼt want his current or future employers to know about it. So NPR is not using his last name.
As the Fed and others have noticed, Krisʼ exit strategy is becoming more common.
Recruiters say applicants are increasingly ghosting on interviews and job offers. Raquel Anaya, a recruiter at a real estate company in Florida, says sheʼs seen a spike in no-shows in both interviews and first days on the job over the past year.
"I think most of the time itʼs that people interview more than one place concurrently and we get edged out on offers," she says. "So instead of just saying ʼI got a better offer,ʼ they just stop."
Lydia, now an accountant, has been there before. NPR is not using her last name. As a "desperate for work" 20-year-old college student, she applied for a job at a small factory that makes plastic.
When she arrived for her interview, Lydia says, she "immediately knew the atmosphere was off." The companyʼs owner, a large and "aggressive" man, made her practice assembling parts for half an hour in view of a foreman.
After she completed the task without a hitch, the owner took her and the foreman to a cramped room. He offered Lydia the job, but told her his expectations were low, all the while getting "way too close" to her, she says.
"I was in a dark office with both of these large, intimidating men anticipating my answer," Lydia says. "I croaked a ʼsure,ʼ and they told me when to start and where to meet them. I almost ran out, knowing that I wasnʼt going back."
And Lydia never did. She was able to get a different job where she felt safer, and she never mentioned the brief experience to other employers.
Anaya, the recruiter, says that if an applicant who disappeared reapplies to her firm, she remembers who has ghosted. "And that doesnʼt look good," she says.
She blames the increase in ghosting on a solid labor market with lots of opportunity.
So does Andy Challenger, a vice president at the job outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. He says he most often hears of ghosting in industries "where jobs are the most plentiful and good employees are the most scarce," including technology and engineering.
Ghosting is a learned behavior, Challenger says. After all, employers ghost applicants all the time and can fire workers without two weeksʼ notice.
"Candidates today are saying, ʼIʼm just going to ghost them, Iʼm not going to respond to the calls and texts and voicemails that they leave meʼ because in some ways it feels like revenge," Challenger says.
No matter how bad a boss is, both Challenger and Anaya donʼt recommend ghosting. As job searchers know, future employers do ask past ones for recommendations.
Plus, sometimes quitting in person can be fun.
"In some ways, people who leave without notice are missing out on one of the most satisfying parts of the human experience, which is quitting a job that you hate," Challenger says. "Even if you do it politely, that can be cathartic."
Kris, the former lifeguard, cites one big reason for not telling off his bosses — the direct, financial impact his ghosting had.
"I feel like I made a bigger dent than I would have if I just said, ʼOK, Iʼm done,ʼ " he says.
But he says heʼd never ghost on an employer that treated him with respect.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 111 - Loop: 158 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 42