I looked for "81" in the page and found nothing. Apparently, he never said that 81.5% of the area is made up of ads. He may have edited it but I think his criticism was towards the unused space for results, not especially towards the ads.
And if that is the case, I must concur. I fail to understand why Google added a large side bar instead of adding more top bars in the unused space next to the logo (perhaps right under the search text box). The designers at Google may disagree but the Jitbit guy sure has a point.
There is a graphic that shows 18.5% for the organic and 81.5% for the ads/rest of the area.
The main reason I disagree with the conclusion is that the area used by Google, or any other company for that matter, for navigation/other tools is hardly equivalent to space used for ads.
That in no way is intended to say that the space is used "efficiently".
The player is playing the kind of game where everybody loses. But there is a way to make everyone win: act like Google has been acting up to now. Every big actor should build up a protective pile of abusive patents (it's so easy nowadays) and threaten anyone that might sue them of counter-suing.
It's just like the Cold war: nuclear weapons were a reality, so everyone got lots of it and mutual assured destruction ensured nothing too bad could happen.
Now Apple decided to play an all-in against its main competitor to establish monopoly by using its abusive patent against someone they knew could counter-sue. And now, instead of discouraging that kind of practice and realizing the perversion of the patent system, the jury decided to encourage them.
In other words: this player chose to play a disgusting game. I think we can hate both the player and the game.
I think it's only disgusting because it's a very visible case, and affects consumers directly. There are probably hundreds of patent wars that happen in the enterprise space that nobody reads about because nobody would understand even if they read it. Those wars would be equally disgusting wouldn't it? I feel like we're only allowed to hate the game if the game provides everyone with the same tools.
Oh they are. They really are. If you haven't already, you should listen to "When patents attack" from This American Life ( http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... ). The guys over at IV are really doing their best to sound like they are genuinely protecting their the poor inventors from the bad guys.
What were you expecting? This document shows room for improvement. It's not a full-on comparison of every aspect.
Engineers don't care about congratulating themselves on the areas where their product is better than the competition. They want to know where the competition is doing better than them. This is the purpose of this document.
Did anyone ever show you his credit card "okay but just once"? I doubt so. The big number is indeed supposed to remain as secret as possible to avoid trouble.
In the UK at least you should never have to hand it over. You insert them into the chip and pin device yourself. A lot of places will do this for you but only in plain sight.
Well, in the US it is common to hand your card to servers after your meal who will then carry it off to the register (wherever that may be, usually not visible) and bring it back to you with a receipt.
The UK may have a better protocol, but that doesn't change the fact that for a significant population, the number on the card is really anything but private. Certainly Apple should know this, being based in the US...
This is usually ok since credit card companies have the whole fraud thing figured out for the most part. It only becomes "not ok" when companies like Apple make them into something that absolutely needs to be secret.
If you are in a position to hire devs (with a proper
budget for it), would you hire this gentleman for $80/h
knowing that he is a 2nd year EE student in Australia?
Given the circumstances, I'd have hard time justifying $40/h. Not because $80 is too high, but because of the inherent performance risks associated with this particular type of hire.
For "hiring as a dev", $40/hr seems in the right ballpark.
For freelance work, I've paid well over $100/hr to people with similar age/experience based on nothing more than portfolios similar to his and a plausible sounding phone-screen.
I've contracted students for work, and while I'm more likely to propose payment terms based on estimated hours with payment on milestone delivery rather than just hourly rates, I'll still assume a similar overall "hourly rate".
Not in Australia. Minimum wage is ~$20/hour +/- $2 (That's about $22US). But you know, income is more equal here, so we don't have the highs. I think $60-$80/hour considering it is freelance.
Look, I used to be you. And lately I've been missing me so I thought it would be fun to sit down with me and advise me on what I didn't have the guts to do years ago.
You're very worth it. Your site alone shows a combination of the following:
- The ability to program something more than just "hello world", a linked list, or the fibonacci sequence. You'd be surprised how many so-called computer science "graduates" I've interviewed who can barely do that, and if so, ONLY that. Don't underestimate the ability to actually program. Contrary to the impression you might get from Hacker News and Proggit, where it seems like everyone and his mayor is learning to code, MOST people in this world can't. There are great people in this world who don't or can't program. They may be smart, but they aren't programmers.
- Experience with modern Javascript, web apps, HTML5 (whatever THAT is), and all the deployment logistics that go along with those things. There are great programmers in this world who can write compilers but who never really groked the web or how to put stuff on it, let alone cool dynamic stuff that works. They may be programmers, but they aren't developers.
- You seem to be able to make it all LOOK good. This is something I still struggle with and, even if all you did was copy something from somewhere else, your site still shows that you care about aesthetics. In this brave new world where geeky toys (read: programs) have become seen in the mainstream as actual "products" (thanks, Apple), people - even geeks - are starting to demand more from their software. They demand that it be friendly, intuitive, and look nice. This is a great advance in our industry. It finally denies us all the permission we've been giving ourselves to produce crappy-looking and crappy-acting software and then hide behind how hard it was to get it working at all. There are great developers in this world who grok the web and apps and all that and still for the life of them can't make something that looks nice. They may be developers, but they aren't designers.
- Your site and HN submission show an aptitude for - or at the least more than a passing awareness of - the necessity, power, and effectiveness of marketing. There are great programmers, developers, and designers in this world whose creations never see the light of day. They may be all those things, but they aren't marketers.
So go back again and take stock of your marketable inventory. You seem to be a:
- Smart
- Programmer
- Who likes to develop "products" as well as cool programs
- Knowing it's important that they look as good as they work
- And realizes that none of it matters unless people know about it
And you don't think you're worth a measly $80-$100/hour?
You know what that is? It's our traditional economic and academic systems infesting your mind with some of its most anachronistic and worthless beliefs. In days gone by, that piece of paper was a requirement to get anyone to even LOOK at you. But now?
No.
You're in the right place already at Hacker News. Here we have people who need good talent. They know it when they see it. They know how much more important a Github and app portfolio are than a "To all whom these presents come greeting..." poster on your wall. In short, they aren't pointy-haired bosses. And you don't want to work for those anyway.
So do me a favor, me: demand what you're worth, and do it before you begin to BELIEVE you're not worth it. Because then you won't be.
He's just a second year student and the only project I've seen is something that any competent student at my almma matter could produce.
Now look at the marketplace. For $40/hour you can currently get an experienced developer living anywhere that isn't San Francisco or NYC.
$100/hour is $4000 a week and $16,000 a month. Now certainly someone, somewhere can command this price but lets not pretend that it is the natural fit for a student.
If you're willing to pay $16,000 then your rate is comprable to what Google/Facebook pay their summer interns for 3 months whom I assure you have just as much skill and passion as you see here.
You might get an "experienced developer" for $40/hr on a fulltime employed basis where that means "$80k/year". You certainly won't get the same level of talent on a contract or freelance basis at that rate.
For a freelancer, "$100/hr" is much more likely to mean $2000/week than $4000/week. Even consultants at the top consulting firms can't (legitimately) bill 100% of a 40hr week consistently.
I'm inclined to agree with other posters - if this site pitched him as a dedicated freelance web dev, I'd quite likely consider hiring him at a $100/hr rate based on the skill demonstrated in the HN Stats site. As a "please buy me some ramen and help pay my tuition" plea - I'd pass him over completely even if I needed pretty much exactly what he's demoing. Its all about perceptions and implications of trust.
I think we're using different definitions for experienced.
Junior developers are still very much more experienced than a student, and won't be making 80k/year anywhere except DC/NYC/LA.
But I find that salary comparisons quickly go downhill on HN because of the bubble that we live in here, so I'm just going to let this conversation go.
> There are great programmers in this world who can write compilers but who never really groked the web or how to put stuff on it, let alone cool dynamic stuff that works. They may be programmers, but they aren't developers.
So one can be a developer if and only if he does web programming? What about all the other plethora of software products that need to be developed?
I was being terse for the sake of style, but the gist of that was intended to be "programmers who make nicely packaged product-type things", which of course includes app developers as well as other categories.
4Chan is known for this: it has the best and the worst of the Internet.
After some time lurking, your brain acquires the skill of filtering threads that it thinks are worthless, without even polling your consciousness. As you develop this ability, you learn to appreciate the best in 4Chan, and it's really good.
I don't know anyone else from there but as far as I'm concerned, I am a normal person in everyday life and I never mention it. I just want to have a good time when I am bored, like many users there.
So it's important to try to filter the content. This site is rather unique for letting users do almost whatever they want without consequences. Some people abuse it but they won't waste it for me: the dogs bark and the caravan goes on.
And if that is the case, I must concur. I fail to understand why Google added a large side bar instead of adding more top bars in the unused space next to the logo (perhaps right under the search text box). The designers at Google may disagree but the Jitbit guy sure has a point.