Items tagged with: why
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20158418
Posted by pseudolus (karma: 30610)
Post stats: Points: 97 - Comments: 112 - 2019-06-11T18:58:22Z
#HackerNews #1984 #orwell #read #seventy #still #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 102 - Loop: 439 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 91
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20116150
Posted by tnolet (karma: 2054)
Post stats: Points: 192 - Comments: 91 - 2019-06-06T16:31:40Z
#HackerNews #company #digital #hell #incident #killed #ocean #out #scares #the #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 158 - Loop: 199 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 50
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20110530
Posted by thrower123 (karma: 1827)
Post stats: Points: 139 - Comments: 108 - 2019-06-06T00:45:50Z
#HackerNews #are #interview #linked #lists #staple #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 128 - Loop: 136 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 24
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20109840
Posted by yakshaving_jgt (karma: 1103)
Post stats: Points: 114 - Comments: 77 - 2019-06-05T22:38:06Z
#HackerNews #for #github #haskell #semantic #used #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 101 - Loop: 150 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 22
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20103935
Posted by ekhornung (karma: 60)
Post stats: Points: 119 - Comments: 73 - 2019-06-05T13:07:08Z
#HackerNews #arent #companies #more #remote-first #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 103 - Loop: 70 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 100
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20096271
Posted by fyoving (karma: 452)
Post stats: Points: 366 - Comments: 126 - 2019-06-04T16:03:25Z
#HackerNews #antitrust #are #big #ignoring #problem #tech #telecom #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 286 - Loop: 308 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 100
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20094242
Posted by gerbilly (karma: 4281)
Post stats: Points: 191 - Comments: 77 - 2019-06-04T12:19:39Z
#HackerNews #generalists #specialized #triumph #why #world
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 153 - Loop: 263 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 36
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20062579
Posted by liyanage (karma: 603)
Post stats: Points: 135 - Comments: 106 - 2019-05-31T16:47:35Z
#HackerNews #deprecated #favor #micro #mini #usb #was #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 125 - Loop: 388 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 80
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20021759
Posted by protophason (karma: 64)
Post stats: Points: 141 - Comments: 97 - 2019-05-27T12:55:50Z
#HackerNews #grpc #switching #were #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 126 - Loop: 378 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 640
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20021289
Posted by Supermighty (karma: 2631)
Post stats: Points: 154 - Comments: 86 - 2019-05-27T11:38:05Z
#HackerNews #2019 #jquery #still #using #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 131 - Loop: 65 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 62
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20004738
Posted by Narishma (karma: 1341)
Post stats: Points: 104 - Comments: 95 - 2019-05-24T19:49:49Z
#HackerNews #backslash #does #path #separator #use #why #windows
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 101 - Loop: 134 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 18
#How to deal with courts 2
#Why take a bite of the fruit of knowledge when you can stay in paradise?
Why claim ownership if you can't even own the temporal body you use? If you can't #own even that, what makes you think you can own anything else?
Could there be an enormous difference between claiming to OWN something vs. claiming to USE something?
Lastly, what's up with the illusion of people owning names?
Do you really believe you can own a #name?
made me #laugh :)
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19952109
Posted by void_nill (karma: 47)
Post stats: Points: 98 - Comments: 113 - 2019-05-19T08:04:00Z
#HackerNews #dont #games #mobile #play #smartphone #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 103 - Loop: 455 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 29
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19937499
Posted by ingve (karma: 104150)
Post stats: Points: 132 - Comments: 105 - 2019-05-17T08:35:15Z
#HackerNews #ads #algorithms #music #play #privacy #terrors #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 123 - Loop: 108 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 127
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19927426
Posted by new4thaccount (karma: 136)
Post stats: Points: 126 - Comments: 58 - 2019-05-16T09:26:45Z
#HackerNews #2016 #executable #large #rust #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 103 - Loop: 360 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 28
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19905299
Posted by tomohawk (karma: 4602)
Post stats: Points: 122 - Comments: 66 - 2019-05-13T23:53:42Z
#HackerNews #automotive #grade #matters #saga #screen #shows #teslas #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 103 - Loop: 118 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 31
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19889365
Posted by pseudolus (karma: 23549)
Post stats: Points: 126 - Comments: 71 - 2019-05-12T00:42:49Z
#HackerNews #doesnt #recycling #why #work
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 107 - Loop: 86 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 84
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19886883
Posted by Supermighty (karma: 1854)
Post stats: Points: 170 - Comments: 17 - 2019-05-11T16:19:42Z
#HackerNews #collaborative #crdt #didnt #editing #for #out #well #why #work #xi-editor
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 119 - Loop: 93 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 49
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19871207
Posted by Jasper_ (karma: 2682)
Post stats: Points: 166 - Comments: 50 - 2019-05-09T19:06:18Z
#HackerNews #are #graphics #harder #much #than #vector #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 127 - Loop: 243 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 59
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19870406
Posted by eindiran (karma: 740)
Post stats: Points: 309 - Comments: 38 - 2019-05-09T17:44:25Z
#HackerNews #firmware #for #important #open #security #source #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 218 - Loop: 211 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 34
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19850629
Posted by jetheredge (karma: 240)
Post stats: Points: 186 - Comments: 103 - 2019-05-07T15:52:20Z
#HackerNews #change #client #dear #heres #long #that #took #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 158 - Loop: 147 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 150
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19833737
Posted by ranvir (karma: 633)
Post stats: Points: 123 - Comments: 86 - 2019-05-05T17:07:24Z
#HackerNews #access #distribution #economy #normal #the #vanishing #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 110 - Loop: 147 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 103
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19832439
Posted by wglb (karma: 41949)
Post stats: Points: 149 - Comments: 93 - 2019-05-05T12:24:17Z
#HackerNews #and #car #city #disrupted #fobs #frequency #know #mystery #now #ohio #residents #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 130 - Loop: 162 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 64
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19815155
Posted by longdefeat (karma: 2675)
Post stats: Points: 117 - Comments: 115 - 2019-05-03T03:02:10Z
#HackerNews #2014 #and #chills #doesnt #eggs #its #most #the #why #world
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 116 - Loop: 63 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 63
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19786685
Posted by pseudolus (karma: 21231)
Post stats: Points: 91 - Comments: 156 - 2019-04-30T10:32:02Z
#HackerNews #age #french #hard #its #learn #middle #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 112 - Loop: 227 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 82
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19770575
Posted by gpvos (karma: 4550)
Post stats: Points: 171 - Comments: 62 - 2019-04-28T11:41:27Z
#HackerNews #isnt #number #prime #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 134 - Loop: 234 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 25
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19738537
Posted by charlieirish (karma: 5033)
Post stats: Points: 98 - Comments: 111 - 2019-04-24T14:17:20Z
#HackerNews #depression #like #listening #music #people #sad #why #with
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 102 - Loop: 198 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 68
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19732821
Posted by lambada (karma: 1226)
Post stats: Points: 117 - Comments: 81 - 2019-04-23T21:01:25Z
#HackerNews #are #failing #folds #galaxy #think #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 105 - Loop: 328 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 51
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19730309
Posted by bpierre (karma: 36729)
Post stats: Points: 101 - Comments: 128 - 2019-04-23T16:42:15Z
#HackerNews #2018 #dont #have #raspberry #wayland #why #yet
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 110 - Loop: 249 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 186
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19720962
Posted by sciurus (karma: 12922)
Post stats: Points: 133 - Comments: 53 - 2019-04-22T17:47:10Z
#HackerNews #http #mistake #turning #was #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 106 - Loop: 220 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 49
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19715191
Posted by andrewl (karma: 3023)
Post stats: Points: 149 - Comments: 73 - 2019-04-21T23:26:10Z
#HackerNews #armstrong #joe #sucks #why
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 123 - Loop: 59 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 65
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19671673
Posted by mzl (karma: 1408)
Post stats: Points: 138 - Comments: 64 - 2019-04-16T07:01:42Z
#HackerNews #longer #model #projects #software #statistical #take #than #think #why #you
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 113 - Loop: 59 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 47
#Mystery Of The #Cocaine #Mummies ( #Ancient #Egypt Documentary) | Timeline
#history #coverup #WHY ?
Check out our new website for more incredible history documentaries: HD and ad-free. http://bit.ly/2O6zUsK
Equinox brings us this investigation of a mystery that is baffling Egyptologists. The case calls into question whole areas of
#worldwide #coverup of our story #WHY
100% PROOF of WORLDWIDE EMPIRE, PERU, EUROPE, EGYPT, 3000 BC! FRESH EVIDENCE!
We see MORE EVIDENCE of Similarities with Machu Picchu, and Ireland in particular Glendalough. I can't buy that the same style is 1000 AD in Peru, and 2600 BC in Egypt?! And what is the age of these ruins in IRELAND which MATCH Glendalough so well! These people desired to build everything the same w.
One small step for Cockroach Labs, one giant leap for our release numbering.
Article word count: 448
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19658969
Posted by tosh (karma: 35692)
Post stats: Points: 97 - Comments: 112 - 2019-04-14T12:22:07Z
#HackerNews #calendar #switching #versioning #were #why
One small step for Cockroach Labs, one giant leap for our release numbering.
Since our initial launch, Cockroach Labs has used semantic versioning in our release cycle guidelines. Two years, one major release, and n-patch fixes later, we’re making the switch to Calendar Versioning. This means subscribers to our release notes will see quite the jump in today’s version numbering, from last week’s 2.1.5 to today’s 19.1 beta.
Why the switch?
While working on our upcoming April release, we kept butting up against some problems with our semantic versioning system. We knew the next release would be significant for our community and user base. Among other things, it includes a cost-based optimizer that can complete the TPC-H benchmark, CDC, and two major enterprise security features. But was this enough of a value jump to merit the leap to 3.0? Or was this a 2.2? Strictly following the semantic versioning rules would specify 2.2, as there are no backwards incompatible API changes. But with that logic guiding the major version bump, we could potentially remain on 2.x forever.
We wanted to find a solution that would minimize frustration (and time-consuming meetings) internally, while setting the correct expectations with users around quality and stability.
Switching to calendar versioning side-steps versioning discussions now and in the future, and helps us (and our users) avoid the confusion around the significance of a release. It also eliminates the mental gymnastics needed to figure out how old a release is or how much time has elapsed between two releases.
Another significant advantage of this approach is that naming guidelines are essentially baked in. Since we release on a 6 month cadence, we’re starting to name releases by season and year, which means our next release is now CockroachDB Spring ‘19. Keep your eyes peeled.
Notes on numbering
A couple details on the semantics of our numbering system: we’re using a two-digit year for the major component and release number within the year for the minor one. We chose release number rather than two-digit month to reduce the chance users inadvertently violate our constraint that we don’t support skipping versions for upgrades.
For patch releases, we’ll use the third, “micro” number in the versioning scheme to indicate the patch number, omitting the micro number on the first release number for external representations of the version number. Our Spring ‘19 (formerly 2.2) release will now be 19.1. Our Fall ‘19 release will be 19.2, the first patch version in Fall will be 19.2.1.
For more information about today’s beta and our upcoming release, check out our roadmap and today’s release notes.
New to Cockroach? Click here to install Cockroach DB.
Get blog posts to your inbox.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 102 - Loop: 162 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 64
Article word count: 1291
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19651245
Posted by philonoist (karma: 1375)
Post stats: Points: 94 - Comments: 97 - 2019-04-13T05:21:34Z
#HackerNews #code #from #jetbrains #studio #switched #visual #webstorm #why
As Visual Studio Code got more and more popular I used it for my further web projects. I really liked it because it was much faster, highly customizable and free so that I could also use it for my private projects.
In my current project, I met a developer who was really confused that I was using an editor and not an IDE for the development of large business applications. First, I did not really consider his concerns but meanwhile, I understand him.
In this blog post, I want to tell you why I now mainly use WebStorm instead of VS Code for development.
This is a very hot topic and I know this will cause some controversy. In the following article, I talk about my experience using WebStorm in a large Angular application which was mainly developed in VS Code.
WebStorm provides a robust, fast, and flexible static code analysis. This analysis detects language and runtime errors, suggests corrections and improvements. It also indexes your whole project and can, for example, detect all unused methods, variables and more.
VS Code VS Code Unused Angular Methods
WebStorm WebStorm Unused Angular Methods
This can have a huge impact on the code quality of a large Angular code base which was mainly developed using VS Code.
To see the difference open your project which was developed in VS Code with WebStorm and run the code inspection. This was basically what convinced me that using WebStorm results in a cleaner code base.
Integrated Karma Tests
WebStorm has an integrated test runner which I really like. This way you can run your tests directly from the IDE and even debug them there.
Running my jasmine & Karma tests in WebStorm I can easily jump to the failed test code and rerun only this specific test. The following image shows such a test run:
WebStorm Karma Tests
My Angular unit test workflow in VS Code is normally to mark a describe or it test block with a f (e.g. fdescribe) which tells Karma to only run this certain test block. Alternatively, I use the karma-jasmine-html-reporter where you can also define to run only certain tests by clicking on them in the HTML page.
There is currently also a VS Code Karma Test Adapter in development which should provide a similar integrated Karma test functionality for VS Code.
Not waiting for promises can be really tricky if you expect the subsequent code to run only after the promise has been resolved. WebStorm shows if there are unresolved promises (in this case for a TypeScript application):
WebStorm VS Code Unresolved Promise
VS Code has currently no possibility to show this information:
VS Code WebStorm Unresolved Promise
Source Control / Git Integration
VS Code has per default a pretty basic git integration. You can either use extensions like GitLens or use additional tools like Sourcetree if you like to use a GUI for complex git work.
WebStorm provides all the functionality for complex git work out of the box. You can commit files, review changes, and resolve conflicts with a visual diff/merge tool right in the IDE.
VS Code does not save a local history of your changes but you can use extensions like Local History.
WebStorm automatically tracks all the changes you made to your files and therefore protects you from accidentally losing these changes. You can inspect the history of files and directories and do rollbacks. This can be useful if you, for example, did a git push force by accident and overwrite your files even on the remote branch.
VS Code can only debug web application on Chrome by using the Debugger For Chrome extension which you then need to configure for your application.
Using WebStorm you already have everything available per-default and, for example, for Angular just need to click “Debug Application” and you can set breakpoints in the editor and watch variables etc.
In my opinion, refactoring code is much better using WebStorm. You can rename a component and it updates all file names and usages both in the HTML as well as in the TypeScript files. In general, all the JetBrains IDEs are well known for their refactoring features:
A well-known feature of the JetBrain IDEs is Safe Delete. Using this functionality you can safely remove files from your source code during refactoring. The IDE will first search for usages of the files and if they are found, you can check them and make necessary before the files are deleted.
Unfortunately, VS Code is not that powerful at the moment.
Angular CLI Integration
WebStorm provides a good Angular CLI integration by the so-called Angular Schematics:
WebStorm Angular Schematics
In total, WebStorm has great Angular support as it assists in editing Angular templates, provides code completion for variables, pipes, and template reference variables.
WebStorm is developed in Java and it feels in general slower than VS Code. I would not say that it is critically slower but the speed difference is noticeable.
VS Code has a faster startup time but if you are working on a project your IDE or editor is always open and startup time does not play a crucial role.
Accessibility Inspections For HTML
WebStorm provides inspections which are based on recommendations from Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) which help you to write more accessible HTML code.
WebStorm HTML Accessibility Inspection
VS Code is open source and free to use.
You need to pay for a WebStorm license unless you choose one of the free licenses available for open source projects, students, teachers, classroom assistance or training courses, coding schools and boot camps.
Another option is to use the EAP (Early Access Program). These pre-release versions include features which will be added to the next release. These versions are temporarily available before a new version of the software will be released.
This is the official disclaimer for the EAP:
This is an early access version of the product. You expressly acknowledge that this version of the product may not be reliable, may not work as intended and may contain errors. Any use of the EAP product is at your own risk.
VS Code is more of an editor than an IDE like WebStorm is categorized as. WebStorm has in its standard installation more features than VS Code has in its default installation without any additionally installed extensions.
Microsoft has created an amazing product with VS Code which you can of course use for larger business applications. Generally, I would prefer and recommend using WebStorm due to these reasons:
* Better code analysis functionalities * All-in-one IDE with good basic functionality without the need to install many additional plugins * Much better code refactoring possibilities
If you prioritize speed, prefer using open source software or just want to quickly edit some configuration files then you should go for VS Code.
What are your experiences using VS Code and WebStorm? Let me know in the comments what you use to develop your application!
My VS Code & WebStorm Setup
The screenshots in this article show VS Code using the Material Dark Theme and WebStorm using the Material UI with Material Darker theme.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 95 - Loop: 95 - Rank min: 80 - Author rank: 65
Last fall, a court filing in the Eastern District of Virginia inadvertently suggested that the Justice Department had indicted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The Wall Street Journal, the New York…
Article word count: 2091
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19638991
Posted by juliusmusseau (karma: 159)
Post stats: Points: 133 - Comments: 127 - 2019-04-11T20:44:42Z
#HackerNews #amendment #assange #deserves #first #julian #protection #why
Last fall, a court filing in the Eastern District of Virginia inadvertently suggested that the Justice Department had indicted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other outlets reported soon after that Assange had likely been secretly indicted for conspiring with his sources to publish classified government material and hacked documents belonging to the Democratic National Committee, among other things.
Illustration by Ricardo Martínez
Illustration by Ricardo Martínez
As a veteran of major free-press legal battles, I waited, throughout the days that followed, for journalists to come to Assange’s defense. A few reliable advocates, such as the ACLU and the Knight First Amendment Institute, did sound the alarm, but the editorial boards of the Times and the Washington Post remained silent.
The Columbia Journalism Review allowed that Assange’s prosecution “could be a slippery slope that would threaten traditional journalists and publishers,” but it was quick to note that WikiLeaks was a “shadowy organization” and “not officially a journalistic one.” (Of course, there is no body, not even the CJR, that determines what is “officially” a journalistic outfit.)
Overall, the same mainstream journalists who have treated Donald Trump’s disparaging tweets about them as unprecedented threats to their freedom handled Assange’s indictment as a political story, another piece of the ongoing Trump–Russia saga.
In fact, the Trump Administration’s prosecution of Assange represents a greater threat to the free press than all of the president’s nasty tweets combined. If the prosecution succeeds, investigative reporting based on classified information will be given a near death blow.
Julian Assange started WikiLeaks in 2006 with the stated purpose of providing a place for newsworthy information to be released on a confidential basis. The site came to widespread international notice a few years later, when Assange obtained thousands of classified documents relating to the Iraq War from US Army soldier Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning. Assange in turn shared these documents with Le Monde, El País, Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the Times, each of which separately edited and published what they’d received.
Amid the furor surrounding this publication, politicians from across the political spectrum—Senators Dianne Feinstein and Joseph Lieberman among them—called for Assange’s prosecution. Barack Obama’s Justice Department seriously considered indicting Assange under the Espionage Act and convened a grand jury for that purpose. The legal theory behind such a prosecution involves charging Assange with conspiring with Manning to release classified materials. Using this “conspiracy” theory, the Espionage Act would be made to apply to a reporter—not directly but indirectly—by using the reporter’s relationship with sources. In other words, the reporter would be made responsible for the actions of his sources. (Manning was eventually convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking to Assange.)
The Justice Department has been enamored of this conspiracy approach since the time of the Pentagon Papers. In that case, Richard Nixon’s DOJ attempted to enjoin the New York Times and, later, the Washington Post from publishing a forty-seven-volume Defense Department study of the history of US relations with Vietnam from 1945 to 1967, which had been classified top secret. I led the team of lawyers who defended the Times in that case. I had advised the Times that the government would attempt to enjoin publication and thereafter would attempt to prosecute the Times criminally. I also advised the Times that it would win any case brought against it in the Supreme Court, on First Amendment grounds.
In June 1971, the Times published three installments of the papers and was enjoined from further publication, as I had predicted. The Washington Post then picked up where the Times left off, and both papers ended up in the Supreme Court, which ruled
in their favor. The court’s decision is now widely considered a legal landmark, since it effectively determined that no injunction could be brought to stop publication of classified material.
The ruling did not, however, determine that newspapers or their reporters were immune from prosecution after the fact. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, attorney general John H. Mitchell convened a grand jury in Boston to determine whether there was a conspiracy among Times reporter Neil Sheehan and others with respect to the publication of the Pentagon Papers. After a year and a half, the Justice Department gave up and dissolved the grand jury.
Since Assange has already published the leaks in question, he obviously cannot be stopped from publishing them now; all the government can do is prosecute him criminally for obtaining or publishing the leaks in the first place. To date, there never has been a criminal prosecution for this type of behavior. Obama’s Justice Department ultimately concluded that a prosecution of Assange would damage the First Amendment. Their decision effectively meant that Assange was entitled to the same constitutional protections given reporters. (A Washington Post story about this decision quoted Obama officials who referred to the “New York Times problem”—i.e., the fact that any precedent set with respect to Assange could be applied to traditional journalistic entities.)
Trump’s Justice Department has reversed course on this decision. When Jeff Sessions first came into office as attorney general, he said that one of his top priorities would be going after Assange. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—then the director of the CIA—said, “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state, hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
While no one knows what’s in the DOJ’s indictment, it is highly probable that it names Assange as a co-conspirator not only in connection with the Manning leaks but also in connection with the leaks of emails stolen from the DNC and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta, as well as the leaks of classified information detailing the CIA’s ability to perform electronic surveillance (the so-called Vault 7 matter).
With respect to the DNC/Podesta leaks, Assange is in the crosshairs of special prosecutor Robert Mueller, who apparently believes that he may have conspired with Russian intelligence and perhaps additionally with members of the Trump campaign to leak the emails. Assange denies both that he received the emails from Russian intelligence and that he provided information to the Trump campaign.
Mueller’s January indictment of the former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone alleges that Stone tried to communicate with Assange through two intermediaries: radio host Randy Credico and political commentator Jerome Corsi. After laying out these allegations, Mueller indicted Stone for lying about his contacts with Credico and Corsi, and for attempting to get Credico to lie before Congress about their conversations. In a later filing, Mueller contended that he had executed search warrants on accounts that contained communication between Stone and “Organization 1,” understood to be WikiLeaks. (Stone has pleaded not guilty to all charges.)
Not all of the facts about the DNC leaks have come out yet, so it is hard to know exactly what Assange did. If he explicitly agreed to act as a Russian agent, he should lose his First Amendment protection. On the other hand, if he did no more than what he did with Manning—receive the documents and publish them—he should have that protection. The same is true with respect to the Vault 7 matter: the facts concerning these leaks are not known, but the application of the conspiracy theory to these leaks is presumably the same as in the DNC hack.*
- Assange may also be indicted for assisting Edward Snowden’s flight to Russia, since Sarah Harrison, an Assange adviser, accompanied Snowden on that flight. It has yet to be proved that Assange directed her to do that. Regardless of how this charge plays out, it should not disturb Assange’s First Amendment protection for his other actions. Additionally, Assange was arrested on Swedish rape charges in 2010; his current asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London began after the UK attempted to extradite him on those charges in 2012. In May 2017, Sweden dropped the charges.
Should Trump’s Justice Department succeed in prosecuting Assange, the only safe course of action for a reporter would be to receive information from a leaker passively. As soon as a reporter actively sought the information or cooperated with the source, the reporter would be subject to prosecution. National security reporting, however, is not done by receiving information over the transom. It is naïve to think that reporters can sit around waiting for leaks to fall into their laps. In a recent interview, the longtime investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told me that he obtains classified information through a process of “seduction” in which he spends time trying to induce the source into giving up the information. If he isn’t allowed to do that, he says, “It’s the end of national security reporting.”
It’s clear that the Justice Department believes such “seduction” creates a conspiracy between the leaker and the reporter. In its prosecution of the State Department employee Stephen Jin-Woo Kim for leaking classified information about North Korea to a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, the DOJ stated, in a sealed affidavit, that it considered Rosen a “co-conspirator.” The DOJ filed the affidavit with the D.C. District Court in 2010 to gain access to Rosen’s email, which showed him persuading Kim, asking for the leak time and time again until Kim finally relented. The affidavit was unsealed three years later, to the shock of Rosen and many other journalists. When Fox News angrily protested that Rosen’s First Amendment rights prevented him from being a co-conspirator, the Obama Justice Department assured Fox that it would not prosecute him. If this type of conspiracy theory were to be applied in a criminal trial, a court would end up examining every effort by a reporter to obtain information. It would criminalize the reporting process. Reporters and their publishers would argue that the First Amendment protected news-gathering efforts such as Rosen’s, but the result would be in doubt in every case.
If reporters can be indicted for talking to their sources, it will mean that the government has created the equivalent of a UK Official Secrets Act—through judicial fiat, without any legislative action.
Given the threat the Justice Department’s actions against Assange pose to the First Amendment, why haven’t more journalists, press organizations, and editorial boards jumped in to support him? Principally it is because journalists dislike what he is doing; they don’t believe he is a “real” journalist and therefore do not see him as entitled to the same protections they enjoy.
Writing in U.S. News and World Report, for example, Susan Milligan says, “ [Journalism]requires research, balance and most of all judgment. . . . Dumping documents—some of them classified—onto a website does not make anyone a journalist.” Add to this my own experience of when I was attacked several years ago by a howling mob of A-list journalists led by the late Morley Safer at a party (for my own book) where I said Assange, as a reporter, was entitled to First Amendment rights. “He is just a data dumper,” I was told—and most everyone there agreed.
But he’s not just a data dumper. He edited the Manning leaks initially, holding back some material. He may have done the same thing with his other leaks, including the Vault 7 releases. For better or for worse he seeks out information to be published on his website the way other journalists do for their publications. He is a publisher and is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as any other. Nonetheless, in the eyes of establishment journalists he remains a dumper, as well as a rapist, a liar, a thief, and a Russian agent.
One wonders whether the real reason journalists will not support Assange is that they simply don’t get it. They don’t understand how a successful prosecution of Assange would threaten their ability to report. I would suggest that the focus of the mainstream press should not be on whether Assange meets the usual definition of a journalist or whether they approve of what he does. That’s not the point. The point is that he carries out the functions of a journalist, has First Amendment protections (as they do), and should not be prosecuted for what he does. If he is, we are all worse off for it.
 [IMG]You are currently viewing this article as a guest. If you are a subscriber, please sign in. If you arenʼt, please subscribe below and get access to the entire Harperʼs archive for only $23.99/year.
= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
James C. Goodale is the former general counsel of the New York Times and the author of Fighting for the Press.
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 131 - Loop: 105 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 53
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