This is the number one reason that I prefer Mac-only products to products that are available on both Windows and Mac.

Invariably, the companies decide that since they have 4x the sales on Windows as on Mac, the correct course of action is to build a product that is identical in almost every way with just a very thin GUI "skin" on the outside that is Mac or Windows specific. I don't know if this is because they think that the Windows sales "validate" the UX design or if it's an attempt to save money by having a single code base (or both?), but the results are invariably awful on the Mac.

Windows users are not interchangeable with Mac users. What "works" for someone who was given their PC by the IT department does not work for someone who deliberately chose to buy a product with a tiny market share.

I guess Paul just wants the world to know that the image of Gates as our benevolent patron of philanthropy is itself revisionism, lest anyone forget that Bill Gates was one of the least loyal and trustworthy friends a person could ask for.

It doesn't surprise me that HN sides with the victor in cases like this, but I would argue that any serious business person should watch and learn carefully from the lessons of two close friends who changed the world and ended up disliking each other.

When I'm searching for something, my behavior is usually:

     Google search term
     Open the top couple results in a new tab
     Check each tab, to see if they contain the information I was looking for
     If tab is not useful, or more information is required, check next tab. 
     If information is satisfied, close window (all tabs, including search)
     If no tabs remain, and still need more information, return to search page and check next results.

     Google search term
     Check first result link
     If information has been satisfied, close window.
     If more information is needed, go BACK, check next link.

The only way I see this feature being implemented in a workable solution is as a browser addon--so that when I'm on a page that I find particularly awesome [whether I found it via search results or by following some page link] I can click on the +1 toolbar button.

Such an implementation would I think would also enhance the result set of affected links. In it's current implementation I'll only find plus one's when I just happen to be searching for the same or similar thing as some one from my social circle. Where as as a browser extension I'll find plus ones for any page that any one in my social circle has visited and found interesting regardless of if they ever issued a query for that subject matter.

Other people just never applied. I remember manning the booth at one of those college campus events and it was very lonely. I probably talked to three students that day. Nobody followed up with us. I even had the distinct feeling that students avoided eye-contact with us and made beelines for the booths of the big established companies.

In the end, our hiring interview process for interns was 'do you want to work for us? yes? you're in' and for full-time applicants it was simply non-existent. I think in the last three years we did not interview a single person.

I often wondered why that is but I have never found a good answer. In the end it worked out for us. The company was acquired by Google.

Still, I would have liked to have some applicants and interviews once in a while because I keep reading so much about them and I wanted to practice being an interviewer to avoid pitfalls as described in the article.

I am a college professor, and even though I observe at the end of each term that some of my students have failed to learn anything, I don't really want anyone to fail.

However, ...

There are 3 major phases in clinically testing a drug's safety and efficacy before it's brought to market, and it seems like they're close to starting the first one.

For all those interested in the 3 phases, here they are:

Phase 1: Small number of healthy volunteers to assess drug safety, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics.

Phase 2: Small number of patients with the disease of interest to test drug efficacy.

Phase 3: Large number of patients with the disease of interest to test effects of new treatment in comparison to those of existing treatments. This is where you see double-blind studies, etc.

Personally, this isn't terribly noteworthy. They've merely devised a new theory that's shown to be effective using animal models, and are still quite a ways away from seeing if similar results will occur with human testing. Of course, I do hope they see good results.

His comment is not spam.

His comment caused discussion.

His comment is an opinion, not a false fact.

There are no personal attacks of any kind in his comment, and his language is fine.

His argument is simply unpopular.

None of your responses indicate any of the usual legitimate reasons for downvoting.

So why the downvotes? Do you really want HN to be an echo chamber instead of an arena of civil discussion?

Finally, great companies have been built without their founders. Cisco and Intel lost/forced out their founders relatively early.

Most people submit articles in some part because they receive karma points for interesting submissions. It's not just by magic that good articles "tend to find their way here."