And some devs have the idea that they are Better Than You, no matter what your skill level or expertise. I'm a web dev and worked on a project recently with a lead who had just enough experience with web dev of the 90's to be dangerous. For example, he fought with me repeatedly about md5 being good enough for password hashing, while I wanted to use bcrypt (or at the very least, SHA1, even though it's almost as bad as md5). It took weeks before he relented, and only after I sent him several articles about how broken md5 is. In the end we wound up removing encryption entirely because it made his deployment process harder.
It sounds like you cared more about being right than from seeing it from his perspective. Even if you ARE right (keep in mind that right is often incredibly subjective), it's far more important to understand why someone is taking the "wrong" stance. Now, I'm sure you felt quite a bit of frustration over this and possibly other arguments. I'm not trying to dismiss your feelings, but once you understand someone's perspective, you can often turn an "asshole" into a colleague you can work well with. Believe it or not, being "right" all the time doesn't actually garner respect as much as being able to work well with others.
Whilst I agree you should always try and see things from the other person's perspective, and that this method often works well, I do think some people - some select individuals are beyond reaching.
Like an old manager of mine who told one of my team members in her review, "I'm not giving you a pay rise, but it's not because you're black." I mean, what can you say to that? She was in tears. The guy was so self-centered he didn't even realise that the things he said might cause offence.
Could it be that he didn't care more about being right, but rather didn't want his name attached to a project using deprecated crypto standards? Or that he genuinely cared about his customer's data security and privacy?
To me, he sounds like someone who's very defensive about a topic at work because of the conflict involved. And until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'll assume it's because of one of the two reasons I mentioned above (or both).
This is definitely not geared toward techies. The closeup of the mouse and keyboard in the first few seconds is meant to make average people think "Oooh, this is high tech."
I remember when I was this dramatic. I have no doubt that the emotions he experiences are very real, but he has no frame of reference to see all this for what it is: not really a big deal. If he fails, it sounds like he has a safety net and support to get on his feet and try again. There's no shame in being "mediocre" and having a 9-5 as long as he doesn't get complacent and lose his drive.
Any decent entrepreneur, however, is not going to lose that drive and desire. I know I haven't, and I've yet to achieve what this kid has. Even if he fails, he tried. He'll learn a ton and will be better-equipped for the next go-round.
We are at an interesting juncture of history. It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change. Initial fears after the NSA leaks seemed to be that the public would become outraged and then forget about it. Clearly, this is not happening. A more secure Internet is needed, and instances like this highlight that necessity.
> It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change.
On a tangent--I have to say, this has been a weird era.
It was started by a small group of people who decided to kick Americans into a state of fear and panic--Bin Laden et al--and they succeeded, wildly. And it might be ended by one man, who decided to kick Americans into a state of suspicion that their fear and panic has been used against them.
It feels a bit mythical, individual heroes and villains swaying the fates of nations like this. Politics isn't supposed to be this neat and tidy, is it? Things like this are only supposed to exist when you revise history to make the lines less muddy. And yet, here we are.
With Bin Laden some of the fear and panic did come from our not being used to such things, but a lot of it also came from our government's overreaction. Which seems to have been at least partly pre-planned and just waiting for an opportunity.
With Snowden, things have been getting more and more absurd and someone was bound to point it out with credible evidence sooner or later.
Politics isn't supposed to be this neat and tidy, is it? Things like this are only supposed to exist when you revise history to make the lines less muddy.
World War I was set off by one guy assassinating one other guy. But, it wouldn't have really mattered if everyone wasn't already this -->.<-- close to breaking out in war anyway.
Politics isn't neat and tidy, and there will always be events that hit at the right time to have outsized effects. And a lot of times, those events will have some visible individual playing a key role.
The public by and large has forgotten it, hell the public hardly became outraged before they forgot it. This and Lavabit and basically preaching to the choir.
The only difference between this and me saying I'm going to stop using email and drop off the internet would be that my statement won't generate several threads on HN. It would, however, have the same effect. Those that already know will ask why, and the rest of the world will go on oblivious.
The public by and large has forgotten it, hell the public hardly became outraged before they forgot it.
Expecting the public to be instantly outraged by an injustice is like expecting customers to instantly understand your startup. Sure, your product is awesome, your ideas are great, and you know how to execute. But you still have a long uphill slog ahead of you before people will start giving you money. The vast majority of your market will only buy once they see lots of other people buying.
Similarly, the average person will only get upset about the NSA when they see lots of other people getting upset. A successful political movement involves winning over one influencer at a time, as the evidence slowly builds up. The Watergate scandals took a good two years to play out. Successful anti-war movements have sometimes taken half a decade.
Politics has a surprising amount of momentum. If you want to change something, you may need to spend years exerting a relatively tiny force on a huge object. And like a startup, you need to lay lots of groundwork so that you can take advantage of lucky opportunities.
Considering that Snowden's first revelation was just this June, I think a lot has happened in a few short months. Public opinion takes time to build. This is not a one-time event to be forgotten. This is a crack in the very foundation of our er... society, or whatever. The bill to reign in the NSA almost passed remember? That's just after a few months from the initial revelation. I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very different.
> I will bet that by this time next year, things will look very different.
I'll take you up on that bet, assuming you believe it's going to get better. I believe the only way you'll win it is if you mean looking very different to include worse instead of the implied better you wrote.
The majority don't care. Of the minority that even pay attention to it, most of them support it to catch the evil terrorists.
weirdly enough, I think the public would have forgotten about it, but establishment leaders seem bent on doing everything they can to keep the story alive (lying to Congress, grounding Morales' plane, forcing Snowden to defect to Russia, harassing journalists, now even attacking their families...).
First, Snowden steals his information from a Microsoft Sharepoint server? What are classified documents doing on a Sharepoint server? What is a Sharepoint server doing inside the network boundary at NSA?
Next, they blew the recovery. If they negotiated with Snowden when he was in Hong Kong, they could have had him stand trial in Hawaii and won easily. Or alternatively, they could have done nothing and waited for Snowden to settle down anonymously in some Hong Kong apartment and arranged for an extraordinary rendition, most likely with the tacit blessing of Hong Kong authorities.
Instead we've had this wild goose chase across the world, including the surreal scene of Snowden stuck in the Moscow International Airport, with Vladimir Putin claiming that Moscow Airport isn't part of Russia.
Now, they're going to harass a journalist? The US press, which normally handles national security issues in close consultation with US authorities, is clearly spooked, with front page stories in both WSJ and NYT. There's an old adage: never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
The general public, which didn't care, is now bombarded by increasingly fantastical news stories with just enough entertainment juice to keep them interesting: super-spies reading your email, a lone hacker with a model for a girlfriend fleeing Hawaii to galavant around the world, and the invincible United States seemingly flummoxed at every turn.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but what the fuck guys? Have we really never considered how to exfil someone from a hostile nation?
Is this really the best our intelligence community can do? If so, the real danger is less 1984 and more kindergarten cops. Maybe the story is more complex from the inside, but if not, this is being botched from end to end.
Virtually everything run by the government is to some extent botched. I can't think of a single department that is run properly, yet so many people claim the NSA knows everything. Sure they do.
You're missing the point and actually reinforcing the issue against the NSA: The NSA is already botching the whole damn thing - but WHAT they are botching is the fact that they alreday setup the infra to slurp all data. They farked up setting up controls that would prevent something like Snowden (thankfully) and what we are seeing is that they took IMMENSE technical power and are using it against everyone - the fact that they botched up the human aspect is, as you imply, inevitable. But they still have succeeded in getting the infra in place.
Certain agencies within the military run very well (JSOC and Army Corps of Engineers come to mind.) On the civilian side, NRC, OMB, NSF, Department of State. NSA under Alexander is also very well run after the post 9/11 binge abated.
The recovery efforts for Snowden are probably coming out of White House, DoD CSS, CIA, and FBI. Not wild about their performance here.
> It seems like Snowden has accomplished what he set out do to: raise awareness of government abuse and bring about positive change.
While I see some raised awareness, most of the change I'm seeing is that the raised awareness is making the government more successful in intimidating those who aren't actively supporting the status quo into hiding under a rock and not engaging in (or facilitating) mass communication.
While this might be a momentary transition on the way to actual positive change, I think it is naively optimistic to assume that it must be a sign that positive change is in progress.
It's very easy to fall into this mental trap. Developers are creative people by definition; we of all people have no excuse to pass the blame for our lack of success to another. It's a way of avoiding responsibility and completely counterproductive to success. Great post.
This is the kind of posts I'd like to see more of on HN. So many of the posts here are titled "How I did X" or "Why Z matters" and then neglect to go very in-depth at all with how X was accomplished or the importance of Z.
I've got a new job.