PSA: Check your inbox for email from stellar.org, you may be sitting on $ - <AUTHOR> I saw a link for Stellar.org on HN back in 2014 and signed up because it seemed interesting. They granted me 6000 coins in their currency back then and I simply forgot about them.
Turns out they're worth like 0.63 USD right now. I just cashed out.
Maybe you have money too? <comment><USER2> If you're unlucky, like me, you might not have access to your account anymore.

[https://stellarorg.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/206458405-W...](https://stellarorg.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/206458405-Why-is-my-recovery-code-invalid-broken-)

> Between August 3rd and October 31, 2014: Your recovery code may have been > corrupted due to a now-resolved bug.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yep, I remember a thread on HN during that time where we were all signing up. Finding them now is a welcome surprise.

</comment><comment><USER4> Crap, now I feel very bad about not having seen it :(

</comment><comment><USER5> Is it like whoever signed up got 6000 coins? When I checked my email I found out also I have signed up for stellar and tried to recover the account using recovery password. Now I am not seeing any private/public key for the old account and the balance also shows me as zero. Not sure what happened.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here is a reddit thread for those having upgrade issues. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellar/comments/7jf9yq/solving_upg...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellar/comments/7jf9yq/solving_upgrade_issues/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, I remember that thread too, and I already checked my inbox. Couldn't find it haha. I think I thought it was a stupid idea because it was centralized and borne out of Ripple's very bad reputation from its first implementation...

And to be fair, I still think that. But I wouldn't mind having $5k for free.

</comment><comment><USER8> Anyone having issues with upgrading your old account? I get the message that my account has been upgrading after signing in and that I now need to use my secret and public key. However, when I use those in the account viewer it tells me that my account doesn't exist on the network.

</comment><comment><USER9> I found the email and tried logging in. It prompted me to upgrade. However there was no secret and public key shown. I upgraded and got the email. But now I don't know how to login as I never copied the secret key.

Any ideas?

</comment><comment><USER10> Anyone have tips for cashing this out? A good exchange you'd recommend? Binance is closed for new users right now apparently. I'd either want ETH or BTC or USD

<comment><USER11> I just checked and found that I did receive coins way back then, haven't dealt with cryptocurrency but did some research and this is the process I went through (can't guarantee it's the best/easiest/cheapest, but it worked):

\- Recover account using recovery code from Stellar email

\- Convert Stellar into Lumens (it will do this automatically when you log in)

\- Create account on Binance, and use Stellar site to log into wallet and transfer to Binance

\- Trade Lumens for Bitcoin on Binance (took a couple of tries of playing with sell price for them to sell, watch the price coins are trading for to get an idea of a good price point)

\- Sign up for LocalBitcoins.com and transfer Bitcoins from Binance to LocalBitcoins wallet

\- Find someone willing to buy Bitcoins for a decent price in your country who will pay via your preferred method (NZD into bank account for me)

\- Use LocalBitcoins.com to sell to them, it places them into escrow and you release the coins once the money is in your account

<comment><USER10> Thank you! When I tried to sign up with binance yesterday I couldn't register. I'll have to try again later!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is exactly what happened to me and what I did. Unfortunately I sold them 3 or so weeks ago when it was 0.25. :/

</comment><comment><USER13> Hurry up. If all HN users are cashing out now they're going to crash soon. :)

<comment><USER14> During the Christmas holiday, when bitcoin was slumping, I saw that some dude was giving millions of dollars worth of bitcoin to charities, and was like "NOOO!! Anybody but charities!! They're just gonna dump it in the damn market and crash the price"</comment></comment>


How to Convince Venture Capitalists You're an Expert in Artificial Intelligence - <AUTHOR> https://unsupervisedmethods.com/how-to-convince-venture-capitalists-youre-an-expert-in-artificial-intelligence-39d5edaca290#sdflbg <comment><USER2> This is your third time posting this in a day:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=How%20to%20Convince%20Venture%...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=How%20to%20Convince%20Venture%20Capitalists%20You're%20an%20Expert%20in%20Artificial%20Intelligence&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually only twice today. But what's your point? There are over a thousand articles posted to HN every day. Posting a couple times at different hours of the day gives a better chance of it being seen by different people.</comment></comment>


World's Subways Converging on Ideal Form - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/subway-convergence/

<comment><USER2> Isn't this what constructal theory is about?</comment>


iPhone 6s are being bent in people's pockets - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/apple/iphone-6s-are-being-bent-in-peoples-pockets-including-mine-1605177/ <comment><USER2> It's a feature.

<comment><USER3> Apple's revolutionary curved display.

\- Automatically adjusts to the user's pocket for improved comfort.

\- Memory Aluminium holds for as long as you need.

\- User adjustable by manual force.</comment></comment>


Homophobic? Maybe You're Gay - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html

<comment><USER2> Every -phobia has a -philia, though the word "homophobia" was made up about 30 years ago or so, maybe they weren't thinking about the Homophile. I'd prefer to use standard english as to avoid confusion. What's wrong with somebody just saying whether or not they like or don't like sodomites, and skip all this newly infused terminology. And it wouldn't be depriving the SPLC of their love for attacking the intolerant. In this case their target would be those intolerant of sodomy --clear, simple and biblical.</comment>


The repetitive and boring gameplay in WoW is probably intentional. - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinding_(gaming)

<comment><USER3> I came to the conclusion long ago that the only effective way to have effective non-grinding gameplay in an MMORPG is to base the game around competition between players. It is infeasible from a monetary perspective (development costs) and a practical standpoint to have _interesting, custom- built content_ to fill years of gameplay.

What can break this barrier is interactions between actual people, which are far more interesting and variable than anything a developer can put together himself. The purpose of the game world should be to facilitate competition between players as best as possible.

Finally, a game should also be based around an activity that is inherently enjoyable without the existence of progression. For example, Team Fortress 2 is a lot of fun to play even though you're not "leveling up" or getting "epic equipment". World of Warcraft, by comparison, wouldn't addict anyone if there were no levels or equipment.

I can recall many games that have done either (or both) of these to some extent and were far more fun and interesting than any WoW clone:

1\. Planetside. Not merely an MMOG first-person shooter, but one in which the primary content of the game consists of player combat. Shooting people in multiplayer games is fun, and doing it for territorial control with your friends in a persistent world is even moreso. Global Agenda looks like it might be bringing this concept back in 2010.

2\. Shattered Galaxy. One of those games that got great review scores in every magazine and then disappeared off the map. A somewhat flawed but still very fun MMORTS, it was a blast to play even ignoring the progression aspect, and consisted entirely of player-vs-player team tactical combat with territorial control aspects. Incredibly addictive despite the pretty minimal progression system.

3\. EVE Online. Failed miserably at the "base itself around fun activities" moniker, but based itself almost entirely around player-vs-player combat, empire-building, and market-based competition. To this day, it has set a bar for epic-scale player competition that no other game has gotten near. Basically all of the game's content was entirely player-generated: wars between player-run alliances over player-built space stations using player- built spaceships constructed using player-mined minerals.

In short, make it fun, and make it about competition between people, not between people and Orc NPCs.

<comment><USER4> >It is infeasible from a monetary perspective (development costs) and a practical standpoint to have interesting, custom-built content to fill years of gameplay.

Huh. Autogenerated MMORPG content seems... remotely plausible. Or at least, some of it could be autogenerated. The terrain, at least, and names. Maybe some of the quests. I haven't seen anyone trying this though, I guess it's hard to make autogenerated content pleasant.

<comment><USER5> The compelling part of a RPG is the process of discovery - discovering the world, the story, monsters, powers, etc. If the content is hand-crafted, there's always something new around the corner, which keeps the game fresh.

The problem with autogenerated content is that the process of discovery changes to discovering the algorithms used to generate the content. Once the player has discovered those algorithms, it's impossible to continue having a fresh experience. So "autogenerated" is, at best, taking hand-crafted content, repeating it a few times, and changing some details in the hope that the player won't notice the repetition right away.

This is, of course, only in the context of traditional RPGs - more sandbox- style games, like Dwarf Fortress, or Love (or, hell, at the other extreme of auto-generated content, Tetris) can do just fine.

<comment><USER6> Nethack seems to succeed with generating interesting automated content. It is even fun to just read the "elevation stories", each of them is different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As the creator of a MMO, I can tell you it's absolutely intentional. Our initial design document had the word "grinding" it in many times; I'm sure theirs did too.

If you want people to sink hundreds of hours into a game, the gameplay is going to include a LOT of repetition. The tricky part is to keep it fun and engaging despite this.

<comment><USER8> If a design document of mine had the word "grinding" it in many times, I'd do something else instead.

Another way to make people sink hundreds of hours into a game is to make it play well competitively. It's surprising that one of the prime examples of this (StarCraft) comes from the same company as WoW.

<comment><USER9> There's a fair amount of rote and practice involved in becoming good at StarCraft. The "grinding" in WoW can also lead to subtle and gradual improvement at the game that makes you better at it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty much all modern video games are designed to exploit the same four or five cognitive flaws. The best way to see this in action is to sign up for Idle RPG:

<http://idlerpg.net/>

The one thing video games are good for is learning to recognize these patterns. That way at least you'll have a fighting chance at avoiding people who use this stuff to try to exploit you in real life.

<comment><USER11> Can you list those cognitive flaws?

<comment><USER12> In MMOs it's easy: go look at the psychology of rewards. Psychologists found that if you rig up an experiment where you take rats and give them a button where they get food when they press it they'll more or less do the sensible thing: when they're hungry they press it and then eat.

However, if you rig it up so that if they press it they some times do NOT get food they'll immediately press the damn button until their tiny paws fall off. (No joke.) Even though they could do the same thing (press it until they are no longer hungry), the inconsistent rewards makes them freak out. It's the same thing with MMOs--that's why MMOs have loot that you have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting: because it makes people play 24/7 until they die of exhaustion.

As for myself... i prefer to play games that aren't quite as blatantly copied from psychological experiments. Once you buy into the internal logic of the MMO you're done for until you crash and/or quit.

<comment><USER13> This is also why gambling is so addictive: intermittent reward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I discussed this a long time ago in a comment: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=226688>

The reward treadmill is the secret to retention. Get 'em hooked with quick rewards in the early part of the progress curve, then string them along at the highest levels. Otherwise people will quit in droves before the expansions come.

<comment><USER15> I remember someone mentioning that WoW (and other good MMOs) have a 30 second rule, in that you can run 30 seconds in any direction and find something to do (even if its killing more mobs) in order to keep the player's attention

<comment><USER16> Bungie, the Halo developers, as well as many other developers follow this philosophy. How can you take 30 seconds of fun and repeat that throughout the entire game? That's what many studios strive for.

<comment><USER15> That's true too, but what I meant was more specifically for MMOs (and games that have the player move in similar ways) - any bits of fun in the game should be not more than a 30 second drive/walk/run from another one.

Imagine, for instance, a map of Elwynn Forest (if you've played WoW) and construct a graph over it of all the quest-related things to do or see - <USER2> of them should be more than a 30 second run from the nearest neighbor. Whether this is _actually_ the case is an implementation issue :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Thus, by creating a direct correlation between in-game power and time spent grinding, every player will at least have the potential to reach the top 20% (although the Pareto principle will still apply to the amount of time spent grinding)."

This is like translating your time and effort into worthless in-game currency (reputation in game). At least if it was based on real life skills like accuracy and response times, you could train these real life skills and get benefits in and out of game.

Call of duty rocks, no need to grind (as long you're not trying to level up). I can just hop in and dominate. I imagine that people who play Call of Duty online are the least likely to also play World of Warcraft regularly.

</comment><comment><USER18> Given my experience with many solo RPGs and with a couple MMOs besides WoW, I'd say modern WoW is actually pretty gentle on the grinding curve than most games. (Try playing Etrian Odyssey or FF XI, gads...)

I stopped playing after WoW after about a year not due to boredom, but frustration with end game content and game play emphasis during holiday events due to the new achievements system. It really ruined what really was, for me, a laid back, semi-relaxing game turning it into a grunt fest.

For some, the "boring" content is more meditative instead.

</comment><comment><USER19> Grinding is only boring and repetitive if you just try to be average while doing it allowing for a huge margin of error. Compare this to playing chess or poker, is it "grinding" there to play the same thing over thousands of times? If you are just mindlessly shoving pieces around a board, going "all in" every hand without looking at your cards, or if you just randomly "grind" -- yes all 3 of those activities sound horribly boring to me.

</comment><comment><USER20> While it is certainly possible to grind in WoW, it's not mandatory or necessary. You can get well along doing instances, quests and player-versus- player, and even get good items on the way. No need to grind 1000 trolls to get a good sword or staff ;-)

I myself prefer doing instance groups more than anything else in WoW.

</comment><comment><USER21> Aversion to grind is why I prefer Diablo 1 to Diablo 2. First one is hard enough to be adventure. Second one is just a grind.

My aversion to grind might be also the reason why I don't seek daily job.

</comment><comment><USER22> subscription fees + time invested in leveling = sunk costs

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy)

players will spend more time playing than they would otherwise want to due to their perception of sunk costs, hours of gameplay provided expands to meet this demand with a grinding mechanism being the cheapest type of gameplay to offer

</comment><comment><USER23> I can't stand WoW. I try playing for 30 minutes and just quit.</comment>


Unfuddle gets a speed boost from Amazon EC2 - <AUTHOR> http://unfuddle.com/blog/2009/1/27/infrastructure-upgrades-and-amazon-ec2

<comment><USER2> Slightly off topic, but Unfuddle offers a great service. I use it to host the repositories for my personal projects.

</comment><comment><USER3> Was there supposed to be content here other than "we use EC2!"?

<comment><USER4> So, while I would ordinarily agree that it isn't news, Unfuddle was becoming pretty unusably slow for me (or I've become unusably impatient... take your pick) for awhile now.

I know of a couple teams that either moved or were contemplating a move from unfuddle, so maybe this will help keep/regain those users?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We we're that close to switching our client projects over to github and lighthouse(or some other bug tracking tool). This has significantly improved Unfuddle's speed so we're now not moving them anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER5> unfuddle is a really great service. The free version is awesome.</comment>


Finding Bieber: On removing duplicates from a set of documents - <AUTHOR> http://stevehanov.ca/blog/index.php?id=144

<comment><USER2> Convert to tfidf space and search for the documents with the highest correlations (using, i.e., a clustering algorithm).</comment>


Ask HN: Company wants one week test phase - <AUTHOR>

Hey,
I am interviewing lots of companies and most of them are interested, but the one with the most interesting project for me wants to do a trial period. How can deal with this situation? I am fairly certain the trial will go well, but at the same time I don't want to hurt my chances with other companies.
UPDATES:
Answering a few questions: The company is willing to pay, of course, and they are incredibly nice. They had a developer leaving very prematurely, hence this new step in their hiring process.
When I said this would hurt my chances with other companies, its because I already got some offers down, and they expect to hear sooner than a week. Declining those is a risk. <comment><USER2> It depends a lot on unmentioned details. What's the opportunity cost for you (what are you giving up to go for a one-week trial)? Why would you think it would hurt your chances with other companies? I'd imagine they would pay you. If not, that's a bit of a red flag against the culture.

If the opportunity costs aren't too great, I'd go for it. But I'd make sure it was clear that it was a bi-directional arrangement. I'd be evaluating their culture and my potential co-workers as well to see if that would be a mutually beneficial long term solution. At the end of the week I'd be able to make a more informed decision if the work environment would work out for me.

Not sure how to deal with the compensation on that, maybe 1099 if you are in the US.

I'd look at it (as much of life) as a positive learning experience. Even if you learn nothing technically, every interaction with someone is a chance to see alternate perspectives. In the long run, that's highly valuable.

Pro tip: this should have been posted as a "Ask HN:" not so much "Help me out:". Also I believe this has been asked here before over the years. You might to well to research some of those posts.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually tried, but couldn't get the keywords right for the search.

Excellent feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ask a few questions, and make a few demands (because they're implicitly making one of you).... 1) A trial is not uncommon - it may mean they're skittish of any hire do to past history. Find out exactly WHY they want to do a trial, so that you can make sure to address all of those points while you work. [Eg: did the last guy quit, have poor skills, etc] 2) Determine if you will get paid and have an officer sign something stating the amount, and when it would be due. How is up to you. For consulting projects, I've agreed to X deliverables up front - with a pre-payment fee of 50% and 50% due on completion. Keep the scoping small.

</comment><comment><USER4> You said they had the most interesting project. That's less uncertainty in your life. They are giving you a shot: even less uncertainty in your life. What do you have from the other companies? Interest, but still uncertainty.

Always move away from uncertainty.

Edit: taking your update into consideration, still move away from uncertainty and take the (next best) offer at the place that suits you best. What could you do in a week anyway? Or what could you learn about their processes in a week? A good test drive takes a month.</comment>


"Those Crazy Ideas" - Isaac Asimov on Creativity - <AUTHOR> http://22.214.171.124/search?q=cache:yS6Dl3orO0oJ:www.iit.edu/~symposium/dox/1999-10-06%2520Those%2520Crazy%2520Ideas.doc&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

<comment><USER2> "I think therefore I am" is not from Aristotle but Rene Descartes not a good way to start :P

<comment><USER3> Is this even by Asimov? It's hard to imagine him making such a mistake.

<comment><USER4> "President, Jamar A. Martin" added the first paragraph. This is more clear in the actual .doc. Some short phrases can be matched up in Google's indexed version of the publication of the essay.

[http://books.google.com/books?ei=gGhaR77JGoTqiQHAht20Bg&...](http://books.google.com/books?ei=gGhaR77JGoTqiQHAht20Bg&id=RWIRAAAAIAAJ&dq=asimov+where+do+you+get+your+crazy+ideas&q=where+do+you+get+your+crazy+ideas&pgis=1#i=gGha)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you pay attention to emotions in your remote teams? - <AUTHOR> Hello remote workers!
If you're in a remote team you know how difficult is to "connect" with other colleagues. Everybody is always in a hurry so there's no deeper synchronization.
In my team, we're doing a "check-in/out" inside each meeting where we take turns by answering "With what emotion you're entering/exiting this meeting?". From time to time we change the question with something different in order to build awareness. This helps with establishing mindfulness and understanding what is the emotional climate in the team. For a team of 5-10 people, it takes 5-10 minutes to do it. It makes space to slow down before jumping to the agenda. We also do retreats every 3rd month but a lot of stuff can happen in 3 months...
What are your habits for increasing your team's emotional intelligence?
Disclaimer: I'm doing product research in this field by implementing a tool[1] which helps teams to harmonize their emotional states.
[1] here's a sneak peek https://imgur.com/a/dDkfRVg but I won't go into details as I fear it may derail the topic. Part of it is inspired by research from Yale and Geneva universities and their departments for EQ. <comment><USER2> To be honest, I'd find it pretty creepy to both have this asked every meeting, and also to have it tracked by any tool. I would likely seek work elsewhere. One on one conversations about emotions can be appropriate, but a group setting like that reeks of 'emotional harmonization' equating to control.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is rather interesting, thanks for the feedback!

I suppose you never participated in support groups, mastermind groups or others where there's psychologically[1] safe space for "opening up"?

I agree that if not done properly it will become creepy and insignificant and will burden the meeting making it toxic :(

So I suppose in your teams you rely on 1:1 conversations but aren't you afraid of guarding[2] too much information this way?

[1] [https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a- successful...](https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful- google-team/) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_silo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_silo)

<comment><USER3> not the OP, but a second opinion from someone with the same reaction -

1) "safe spaces" for emotions is inherently at odds with corporate culture, point blank. They exist to use you. They pay you, you provide them a service and/or your time as written in the contract. It is in your best interest to not be the nail that sticks out from the wood if you wish to keep the money coming because ultimately the power exchange lies heavily with them.

2) I don't do support groups, though this is more of a personal decision. Keeping vulnerable facets of my life completely air-gapped from cash flow and from other untrusted and un-vetted individuals has never failed me.

Now - water cooler-ish 1:1's a la "hey, you hanging in there?" can be done with tact and sincerity by select individuals if there's a previous rapport. But there is an art to sniffing out whether it's meant with a sincere no- bullshit-humanity-centric angle, versus "can we optimize this individual's output" angle. It's demeaning to think one can be the other.

<comment><USER2> You nailed my feelings on the matter - I love the concept of 'air-gapping' as applied to personal truths here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This solution is incredibly bizarre and uncomfortable just to imagine. Just interact organically like humans. Like my wife says, "stop trying to make everything an engineering problem."

You already answered your question: "Everybody is always in a hurry.. ." If you care about the quality of human interaction you'll fix that problem instead of trying to engineer a quick fix. Find more time to be social. Play video games. Hack on stuff. Cause mischief. Figure out whatever it is people want. And never make any of it mandatory (whether explicit or implicit). Meet in person more.

<comment><USER5> > Just interact organically like humans.

That's the issue though - remote teams are not how humans normally interact.

I think it's a pretty good question. It's easy to communicate about code or something specific, remotely, less so to just get a general idea of how a colleague is doing and the nuance of their feelings about things.

<comment><USER6> How do humans normally interact? I normally interact with some of my best friends over text chat. At one point, I almost exclusively knew my best group of friends through IRC. I've hung out with people in person without speaking any words at all, because that group was deaf (okay, I lie - I probably flubbed and said things a few times)

"Normal" communication is pretty varied - Think of for how many people Snapchat is the primary way they communicate with their friends. You can probably say that the median conversation looks like two people about a foot apart flapping their lips, but it veers in many directions from there.

My idea of effective group communication, and mine alone, is that I'm frequently bullshitting in one space where chitchat and cat pictures are being posted, and talking about serious matters in another space where threads are long but infrequent. Simultaneously and privately, I will intersperse chitchat and serious conversations with team members 1:1 in private chats - I expect most planning to be done in public and "work" to be done in private. I will frequently, say 4 times a day for 15 minutes, open up a video call with one or more other members of the team. I will also spend about 30-60 minutes on planning meeting videochats per day.

<comment><USER5> > IRC

You may have been doing this for long enough that you're pretty good at it. Most haven't.

Also: one thing are friends online, another is a random assortment of coworkers, who you may not have had the time to get to know that well, or have somewhat different personalities, that are all under pressure to get stuff done together, and quickly iron out any disagreements.

<comment><USER4> I think the age old solution to getting stuff done with coworkers under pressure and ironing out disagreements is to act professionally.

<comment><USER5> I'd take that as a given. As someone who worked remotely for several years, it is more difficult to communicate as well when you are not in the same room.

When you know someone better because you talk in person every day about work, but also life in general, and maybe have lunch every now and then... it's easier to have frank (yet still professional) discussions about difficult decisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > In my team, we're doing a "check-in/out" inside each meeting where we take > turns by answering "With what emotion you're entering/exiting this > meeting?".

That sounds horrible and almost cult like by my view. I would be looking for the proverbial door if I were in a team that wanted me to contribute this way in front of everyone.

Just talk to people, if they're quiet talk to them. Pick up on context, treat them like humans not machines that can just have their handle pulled to reveal their internal state.

</comment><comment><USER8> Do you not have frequent one-on-ones and regular conversations with your remote employees? How do you learn about their motivations, goals, current situation, or changes?

If you're trying to replace human interactions and relationships with your employees with single question surveys, you're going to miss out on all the important context.

Getting good output isn't about rushing as fast to a goal as possible and not taking time to make sure things are going well. It's about setting goals that are measurable, coming up with hypothesis about how to get there, and checking in regularly with an objective lens to see if you're on track or if there's a better approach.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is insane.

No one is ever going to be honest since continually being seen as negative or passive can result in your colleagues/boss thinking you're a drag on the team. Or that you are being seen as weak and so not given important or interesting tasks.

Also a workplace is supposed to be a professional environment. I want to be discussing issues affecting my work. Not how we can fix my relationship breakdown which is the cause of my negative emotions. For many people who are dealing with significant issues e.g. death of a loved one a workplace can be a sanctuary for them.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think a prerequisite for doing this would be an absence of power dynamic - like everyone with the same authority, pay, and upside - but I'm not sure even that is sufficient.

As a manager, to protect your team's emotional health your job is often to do the opposite of what the company would have you do. Rather than aiming for peak utilization, introduce slack time (the concept, not the app). Rather than prescribing duties, trust your team. Rather than encouraging them to go above and beyond, mandate they go home at the end of the day. Etc, etc. But I don't think the answer is to demand intimacy from them - instead, it's about giving them _space_ to feel safe on their own terms.

</comment><comment><USER11> Background: engineering manager of a team of 6 at a large tech company. 3 are located in one of our offices, 4 (myself included) are remote.

 _> If you're in a remote team you know how difficult is to "connect" with other colleagues. Everybody is always in a hurry so there's no deeper synchronization._

I'm not sure I agree with this premise. I don't think it's difficult as much as it just requires some explicit effort and habits. For example:

\- We have video standups over Zoom and ask people to turn on video as often as possible. This helps a ton IMO. It's tempting to just do async Slack standups (and we do on occasion) but it shouldn't be the norm.

\- Our broader group uses Tinypulse to send out weekly questions. Answers are anonymous. If the questions are good (ours are), you'll gain a lot of insight into how your team is feeling. I might learn, for example, that I'm not spending enough time with ICs discussing their career path or that people overall are pretty happy.

\- Weekly one-on-one's with my team. Again, over Zoom with video on. This is the best way I connect with my team and get at their emotional state.

\- Code reviews. We do them traditionally in GitHub (every PR requires 2 approvals) but we also have synchronous code review sessions 3x/week in Zoom. These are just 90min blocks on the calendar and attendance is optional. During these sessions, anyone can present a PR, walk us through the code and demonstrate the feature. We don't do pair programming but I think this approach is even more valuable. It has increased our velocity, reduced bus factor, and provided another form of "connection" for our team.

\- Every quarter we either do a team visit to the office or an offsite for our broader group.

 _> In my team, we're doing a "check-in/out" inside each meeting where we take turns by answering "With what emotion you're entering/exiting this meeting?"._

To echo what others have said, this feels like a weird thing to do in a meeting. People already don't like being in meetings, so making them longer with this won't help. That's my 2¢.

Again, maybe I'm just spoiled with a great team, but I would start with some of the basic things I've outlined above. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER12> To me this sounds horrible, on the level of mandatory yoga classes or whatever is now popular HR move which eventually drives away all introverts in your company...

Why not just slow the things down a bit?

That's what I like to do with my teams. Before dailies we chit-chat for a few minutes while waiting for everyone to connect. No rush, no agenda or HR/psychological playbooks, just friendly conversation for those interested. Who doesn't feel like it can stay muted. Also giffy and witty remarks are highly appreciated on internal Slack channel to make it feel more laid back. As a lead I feel it as a part of my job to make people feel good about working with us, but you can't push people into it by applying more rules. Less rules are way more helpful.

</comment><comment><USER13> I worked remote full time for 5 years in a job where I never met any of my coworkers.

I think this fails the normal sniff test I have where if you wouldn't do it in an office environment, you shouldn't do it in a remote environment. It's not really all that different other than communication being harder because folks don't talk as much.

Remote work has many of the same problems as office work. People can be just as abusive. I had a remote coworker halfway across the country say openly and in anger in a team meeting that he was going to drive to my house, knock on my door and shoot me in the face. Because we were remote, HR didn't treat it as a real threat.

</comment><comment><USER14> Work is where I go to offer a service and expect a fee in return. I want a workplace that is civil. It's not somewhere where I expect to share my emotions and not expect that to be somehow used against me ( am not saying every place I worked was like that, but I've seen and heard of enough to be careful with what I share).

</comment><comment><USER15> If I started a remote job and walked into that.. :o

Of course I would not be truthful. Most likely would be looking for a new place unless $$ was amazing and work itself great.

Quote from a book on corporate HR I read years ago stands out. Only suckers tell truth to HR, it(HR) is there to protect company not for your benefit. Exactly same applies here

</comment><comment><USER16> One of the huge advantages about working remotely is that no one else can see my emotions. That way, when I'm angry or upset, it won't upset or anger anyone else unless I express it in chat or another medium. It's much easier to not express the frustration, anger, hopelessness, and other emotions that the job inevitably leads to. If work still insisted, I would in most cases lie. I don't see any reason they should insist. Or any reason that they wouldn't be aware of how they are treating their employees. In my case, I stopped giving a fuck years ago, when I realized that no matter how well or poorly I preform, I will not be rewarded in any tangible manner for it. Now I do the bare minimum. I bet a majority of workers are in this boat and likewise don't want someone pestering them about their emotions. I'm making less, inflation adjusted, than I was when I started six years ago and motherfucking management knows it. Why bother to ask when they know I feel unvalued, unappreciated, and frankly like I don't give a fuck about them, their projects, or their fucking deadlines. As you can see, there's a reason to not ask for this information.

Another reason is because it's none of their fucking business. I'm here to work, not to get therapy. I have a therapist with whom I can share things. With work, I will lie unless I see an advantage to not doing so and I'm sure most everyone else will too.

</comment><comment><USER17> To all the negative replies: yikes!

To me, this seems like a good faith effort to improve work life for your teammates, and build a company where people feel well-cared for.

Remote teams inherently have more communication friction than co-located teams, and - if we want to bridge some of the resulting emotional gap - we'll need new practices to do so.

Incidentally, what OP suggests isn't anything new. Just Google "red yellow green check in"[1].

I've found three ways of building emotional honesty and openness: 1/ regular 1:1s to listen to your direct reports and build trust 2/ lead by example 3/ every week we have a team meeting. During that meeting, everyone on the team answers a question. The question gives them the opportunity to open up about some aspect of their life -- to be better known and understood by their teammates.

[1] [https://blog.travis-ci.com/2016-06-09-start-meetings-with- pe...](https://blog.travis-ci.com/2016-06-09-start-meetings-with-personal- checkins)

</comment><comment><USER18> I have been remote for four years and this solution sounds quite creepy/off- putting. You are unlikely to get any true answers in a group setting.

From my experience, this is best accomplished by connecting in-person on a semi-regular bases.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hi there, worked multiple times on fulltime remote projects over the years. I can echo your concerns.

I think the best way to achieve team spirit and to reduce emotional frictions is actually to break up the remoteness here and then.

Currently I see my colleagues once every week or two and I love it. On fulltime remote projects I try to convince colleagues to meetup once every X months or so and work together for a week.

The amazing thing is, once all of your mates realize that you could do this meeting anywhere in the world, you can turn this week into a great experience. Even more so if one of your colleagues lives in that place.

</comment><comment><USER20> As an architect, I hold bi-weekly office hours where there is no agenda, anyone can ask anything.

Although my goal is mostly onboarding, knowledge transfer, and general help, it also keeps me in tune with other team members emotions.

But, I should add that I'm rarely honest about my feelings and goals until I've built a lot of trust with someone. I usually treat a job as something I don't get emotionally involved in, and thus I'm reluctant to share feelings with a manager I don't have a lot of history with.

</comment><comment><USER21> I make a point of asking people how are they doing at the start of one on one meetings. 9/10 people say 'good', and we go to other topics. 1/10 has something to say, and that's ok too. It's a small thing, but sometimes people just need someone to listen and be heard ... odd to me that it's at work, but ok, I'm glad to help if it helps.

That said, fishing for 'emotions' seems uncomfortable to me, and maybe asking for trouble with HR down the road.

</comment><comment><USER22> > How do you pay attention to emotions in your remote teams?

Video chat.

<comment><USER23> This above all else.

I've seen an entire remote office fall apart because of an over-reliance on slack.

\- Text doesn't convey emotion, so one person's joke often gets misinterpreted as another's jab

\- Text is low-bandwidth and asynchronous. When those two pair together, you get people writing novels back and forth over the entire day when it could have been a 15 min chat

\- Text makes it hard to empathize, which means it's really easy to soapbox and grandstand, which makes conversations very unpleasant and brings out the worst in people.

What works is limiting text communication and actively encouraging video chat. A peer review can have a comment, response, and rebuttal, but anything further should be done over video. Encourage "office hours" for knowledge transfer or "why is this done like this" type questions. Find ways of minimizing friction for video chat -- if it can be done casually it will be used more frequently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I talk to them, one on one, then listen to what they have to say and respond in turn.

This is the only option if you want an honest connection. There are no shortcuts.

<comment><USER25> this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > Everybody is always in a hurry so there's no deeper synchronization.

I'm sorely tempted to just say, "Well, there's your problem.", and leave it at that.

But there is definitely more to it. If you are not getting to know each other well enough when you meet in person to be able tell when someone is upset remotely, then you aren't spending enough time truly getting to know each other. Because the truth is if someone is truly ticked off and disengaged, they will just lie when asked questions about their emotions, and probably get more disengaged in the process.

Truth between team members comes from trust and experience together, not from tools and intrusive questions. You need 1:1s between individual and managers, you need group gatherings where you talk as a team about how the work is going and what you need from the group. And the leaders need to listen to concerns that comes from those discussions and act on them to improve the working environment. Do that, and you will have trust, which will lead to open communication, and you won't need to ask questions at every meeting.

</comment><comment><USER27> We used to do a "feely score" of 1-5. It sort of worked to gauge how the team felt (positive or negatively), but it eventually devolved into everyone arguing over whether 3 or 4 was the baseline for an unremarkable day.

<comment><USER28> We did something like that one place, but a longer survey and on a friggin' 1-10 scale, which tells me whoever set it up didn't know how to measure things or didn't care enough to do it right.

Predictably, 7 ended up equalling "pretty shitty".

[EDIT] in case anyone's wondering what's wrong with that, it's the same thing that can make a top-50% score in IMDB still very bad, plus everyone using different standards for what the numbers mean—with that many available it'll happen even if you try to label them. Scale compression plus no common understanding of what the scores mean. That particular case probably needed no more than four options, maybe even just three.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why do you need emotions for solving logical problems? There's a basic level of communication of course, but focusing on this as something to improve has the risk of displacing technical skill as a culture value. I've been in multiple teams were being logical was somehow frowned upon (I SOLVE LOGIC PROBLEMS FFS) and everyone got butthurt when I tried to critique solutions. Once again it is important to show respect but having to focus on "soft skills", imho is just a distraction for those who don't really understand the value and the difficulty of writing good code.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm suspicious that it's difficult to know someone's work-related emotional state if you're in a position to affect it. And are you in a position to do anything about it if you find that they are stressed? Just ask in a more- frequent one-on-one if you have an employee who is hard to read but be prepared to follow through on supporting them. And (assuming you are their manager) tell them your frustrations and stresses proactively to model what they are allowed to tell you.

</comment><comment><USER31> Communication is a big deal in remote teams, we've been discussing it on Remote-first Conference in January. I'd recommend you listening to our recorded sessions, especially Vivek Nair (Founder at Pragli) and Oksana Zavoyko (Founder of Elin): [https://6nomads.com/remote- conf](https://6nomads.com/remote-conf)

</comment><comment><USER32> I have worked remote for over 6 years continuously. If someone asked this every meeting, I would tell them to get stuffed. That being said, people know what I'm feeling because having worked remote so long I know how to tell them. Examples: "I'm pleased we finally got approval to move on." "I'm frustrated this keeps getting blocked."

</comment><comment><USER33> My last company did stuff like this all the time, and it always felt hollow and very kumbaya. I think there is a less cheesy and even demeaning way to handle people's emotions and disagreements.

This is probably a pretty personal opinion of mine though. I do agree with the mindset, just not the execution.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why not just start the meeting by asking people what they did that weekend? Take an honest interest in their life rather than having them... fill out an emotional intelligence wheel?

<comment><USER25> Nope, meetings are for business, if you want to know what I did on the weekend approach me in the lunch room or at the water cooler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> We used to do an opening question at every meeting! It got axed eventually because people found it annoying. I'm sad we didn't just change the frequency it was really fun.

</comment><comment><USER36> Wow, you sure know how to creep people out. Good luck with that.

</comment><comment><USER37> The only answer you would ever receive from me is "I'm great! This job is fantastic!" While I had the biggest Cheshire Cat smile on face.

Until I find a new job.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'd agree with the oddness of sharing your emotions in a team meeting. I likely wouldn't express my "true" feelings.

I gauge my teammates emotional states based on personal interactions and available context. Nor is it something I would want tracked. But perhaps kept in mind when adding tasks to their plate.

If you want honest feedback, I'd say use the power of anonymity. Engagement surveys with the right questions can pull this data. Keep in mind that the emotional statements can be hyperbolized one way or the other.

TL;DR - talk to your people "face to face." And reach out to those they're close with if concerned. Or directly and up front. Which avoids complicating with subversion.

</comment><comment><USER14> Are you guys working in a 1960s commune? While I applaud your idealistic idea, it will be a disaster in a modern workplace.

</comment><comment><USER39> We use 15five and it has these kinds of questions in a weekly report to each team member's manager, and can be addressed in a weekly on on one meeting. It is more comfortable to share things directly with a manager than to share it in the group. How awkward would it be to say "I'm worried about our company's future" at the start of scrum</comment>


Passports for sale - <AUTHOR> http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/passports-for-sale <comment><USER2> You can already get a visa-for-money from most major first world countries, and after a few years, it is easy enough to make the jump towards citizenship. Is it really that big of a jump to get rid of the time component?

For example:

 _USA_

EB5 investor visa: $1,000,000 or $500,000 depending on the area you 'invest' in. One of the easiest ways to get a green card, and from there, citizenship

 _UK_

Tier 1 investor visa: £1,000,000 in 'investment', which can just be the purchase of government bonds. Apply for indefinate leave to remain (green card equivilant) after 4 years. If you invested £5 million, you only need 3 years. If you invested £10 million, it is down to 2 years. The UK non-domicile tax status can also be very very generous to wealthy expats (unless they are American and thus are taxed on world wide income regardless).

 _Canada_

Canada used to have such a program (Immigrant Investor visa for $800,000 CAD for people with net worths of at least $!.6 million), but that was terminated recently. I believe the Quebec version is still open though

<comment><USER3> In USA's case:

USD $1 million + tax on the _worldwide_ income of a millionaire for 5 years + spending of a millionaire in the national economy for 5 * 182 days + tax on the _worldwide_ income of a millionaire for as long as he remains a citizen plus 10 years afterwards

In UK's case:

£1 million + tax on the _worldwide_ income of a millionaire for 6 years + spending of a millionaire in the national economy for 6 * 182 days

You mentioned 2,3,4 years for the indefinite leave to remain and the powerful non-domicile tax status, all of which are true but irrelevant to this analysis. Anyone trying to gain citizenship through the investor program _must_ be a tax resident for at least 6 years.

In Canada's case:

CAD $0.8 million + tax on the _worldwide_ income of a millionaire for 3 years + spending of a millionaire in the national economy for 3 * 182 days

In St. Kitts's case:

A one time payment of USD $0.25 million

<comment><USER4> The UK does not tax worldwide income. In fact, if you hold your money in an offshore account, you can declare yourself a "non-domiciled" UK person. This special category exempts you from all tax on foreign income in exchange for a small fee.

It is not for no reason that every corrupt Russian oligarch and oil baron and African dictator flocks to London.

<comment><USER3> >The UK does not tax worldwide income.

UK does not tax worldwide income based on _UK citizenship_ , but it does tax worldwide income for all _UK domiciled residents_ , which includes all citizenship-seeking immigrants.

Your trivia on the non-domicile status is interesting, but both the grandparent and myself have already mentioned it, and I specifically said that it's "irrelevant to this analysis".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought I might dislike this article because I support free migration (and probably share some views with the libertarian expatriate who at first seems to be getting set up as the article's bogeyman).

But I was impressed that the article didn't really go there; instead, it uses his experience as part of a pretty compelling observation "that borders exist more for some people than they do for others". And that's absolutely right. I've visited 23 countries and never had a hitch, hassle, snafu, or anybody questioning my presence or right to travel there. Whereas I have known people who grew up in the U.S. but lived in fear of deportation because they came here at age 1 instead of age 0.

And when I helped a medical student from West Africa with his travel itinerary to the Caribbean (which I think was his _only_ experience with international travel), he ended up getting deported all the way back to his home country for lack of a transit visa for one of his connections -- a visa that there's no chance I would have been asked for, let alone deported over. (He had to buy a whole new itinerary and fly across the Atlantic a third time, figuring out how to avoid connecting through that country.)

My coworkers think of Caribbean island nations as a great place to go on honeymoon; the not-actually-the-bogeyman libertarian activist in the article thinks of them as a great place to expatriate; and West African students think of them as "which one won't deport me on my way to school this time?".

<comment><USER6> I am surprised that student from West Africa was allowed to get on the plane. All airlines check Timatic which has up-to-date visa regulations for all countries. Common sense is to check for visa rules if you are citizen of some backwater country and need visa for pretty much anything.

<comment><USER5> I think the deportation was actually by transit country A because of his lack of a transit visa for transit country B. Country A didn't initially require a transit visa, but perhaps the airline did discover a potential problem, whereabout country A migration officials seem to have said "oh, well, if you don't have a plan for how to get out of country A promptly, we're sending you back to your home country".

His original itinerary involved six countries and four separate airlines across two bookings, so I don't think that's inconsistent with what you said.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Obviously, governments and borders are outdated. I lived in 5 different countries (Russia, Switzerland, Italy, US, Denmark), and I couldn't help but wonder — why, why all this paperwork?

<comment><USER8> To keep out third world people.

<comment><USER7> OK then, but why, say, even Canadians need to go through hell if they want to live and work in the US, and vice versa?

<comment><USER9> Is it really hell? How hard is it for a Canadian to live and work in the United States? I know quite a few Canadians who live and work here in the United States. (Indeed, I know people from all over the world here who are living here long-term and who are gainfully employed.)

AFTER EDIT: I am sincerely interested, and I think "hell" may be a bit of an exaggeration, so I'm not sure what's objectionable about this question. But let me know if you have an objection, okay?

<comment><USER10> It depends on your personal situation and there is great degree of arbitrariness.

Canadians can enter the country for 6 months without a visa. This makes it is easy to work illegally for people who are willing to take that risk.

There is the TN visa, which is easy to obtain. But it's only for 8 specific professions. I for one worked as a Computer Systems Analyst. A job title I never heard before that. Once you have this visa it's bound to your employment, when you loose your job, you have to leave the country in 10 days. This is a temporary visa and you can not apply for a green card.

Then there is H1B. This visa allows you to apply for a green card, but you can only apply for it on one specific date per year, if you can get it depends on a lottery (!), which decides if you can work 6 month later. Also it requires a mountain of paperwork, which however the companies lawyer will normally take care of. From there it takes 2-3 year to get a green card.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "What's difficult to argue with is the fact that making it possible for a rich person to buy his or her way out of a country doesn't do much for the billions who are prohibited from leaving theirs, whether it's because of immigration restrictions or just plain poverty. And laws that so explicitly link political membership to financial gain drive home the sad reality that borders exist more for some people than they do for others."

And there you have it. "Some people are just better than others" used to be a polite fiction maintained outside of the public eye; acknowledged but not overtly flaunted. Now it's the latest in how societies are restructured and a somewhat-expected consequence of what happens when information and money can be freely moved but people cannot.

</comment><comment><USER12> The united states offers investment visas that grant "permanent residence to the individual" to anyone who invests over $1,000,000 in several industries. - [http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through- job/green...](http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-job/green- card-through-investment)

<comment><USER13> A green card is different from a passport. You should be able to become a citizen if you live in a place long enough and pledge allegiance. Incentivizing the wealthy to come live in a place is nothing new, but then they still have to go through the same process of pledging allegiance and living here long enough to become citizens.

<comment><USER13> Why the down votes?

<comment><USER14> I didn't but likely your ridiculous line implying that poor and rich people "still have to go through the same process." That's obviously nonsense. Poor people cannot legally gain entry at all, rich people write a cheque, and then get residence after a few years.

If you've ever read some of the, frankly, heartbreaking immigration stories (e.g. families separated for sometimes tens of years). The US seems to have an undisclosed quota in certain parts of the world and a lot of people get rejected for unquantifiable reasons (and then get accepted the second time without changing their status/application). This even seems to occur on family visas which it shouldn't.

You just dismissing the entire vias struggle into living within a country for a couple of years and saying a stupid pledge is ignorant and completely out of touch with the reality for millions of poor people (and even many in the "middle class").

<comment><USER13> My parents are (poor) immigrants. It took them 26 years to obtain green cards. I'm very familiar with the struggle.

All I meant was that this is a far better situation than being able to straight-up buy Citizenship, say, from Malta.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The only thing that bothers me here is that Qatar is toted as an example.

Fun fact: all these athlete citizens in Qatar have a special class of citizenship, as in they are made Qatari but experience none of the perks, especially the very nice benefits of a petro-gas welfare state where basically everything from property to utilities to education abroad is subsidized.

Oh, and when they stop being useful, the citizenship is stripped. This is common knowledge and leads to interesting situations.

More interesting are Palestinian athletes who are not even made citizens. They are not allowed to see their passports. On trips abroad, their handlers carry them and they are only authorized for travel to and from Qatar for any event. Then, they are destroyed/cancelled until the next event.

So, please, do not use Qatar as an example.

</comment><comment><USER16> I, for one, support this initiative. If someone wants to become a citizen of my country then by all means I should consider it, and if they meet our requirements I can let them in in exchange for something. "What will you add to my country?" Money, Knowledge, Science, Art, whatever so long as it benefits.

</comment><comment><USER17> > _Roger Ver, a libertarian who did some jail time for selling explosives > online without a license and renounced his U.S. citizenship a week after he > became Kittitian (paying with cash, not bitcoin) believes in changing > citizenships at will because he finds governments oppressive and borders > meaningless. "My personal plan is to undermine governments who try to > control people and their lives," he told me last month over Skype._

This dishonest demonising is sad. It was a plea bargain for selling fireworks after the state got angry with him for his hostile viewpoint when he actually tried to participate in the political process rather than circumvent it entirely as he advocates now. Protip for those idealistic people complaining about segments of the population entirely abandoning the political process rather than attempting to engage with it and fix the system; This is exactly how you provoke people into that abandonment.

I have come to expect as much from people cheerleading for the state, it's depressing to have my cynical biases validated so firmly.

[http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture- capital...](http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/11/12/bitcoin-venture-capitalist- roger-vers-journey-to-anarchism/)

 _I argued that taxation is theft, the war on drugs is immoral, and that the ATF are "a bunch of jack booted thugs and murderers" in memoriam to the people they slaughtered in Waco, Texas. Unbeknownst to me at the time there were several plain clothed ATF agents in the audience who became very upset with the things I was saying. They began looking into my background in the attempt to find dirt on me. I had already started a successful online business selling various computer components. In addition to computer parts, I, along with dozens of other resellers across the country, including Cabelas, were selling a product called a "Pest Control Report 2000." It was basically a firecracker used by farmers to scare deer and birds away from their corn fields. While everyone else, including the manufacturer, were simply asked to stop selling them I became the only person in the nation to be prosecuted._

 _The reasoning for the prosecution became crystal clear after a meeting with the US prosecuting attorney and the under cover ATF agents from the debate. In the meeting, my attorney told the prosecutor that selling store bought firecrackers on Ebay isn't a big deal and that we can pay a fine and do some community service to be done with everything. When the prosecutor agreed that that sounded reasonable one of the ATF agents pounded his hand on the table and shouted "…but you didn't hear the things that he said!" This summed up very clearly that they were angry about the things that I had said, not the things that I had done._

</comment><comment><USER18> There's a question I've had about the citizenship for "investment" programs. It's frequently framed as an investment, not a sale [1]. That seems to imply that there is a chance of getting your money back. So could one "invest" the required amount and then sell the investment a few years later, keeping the citizenship? Or are the investments things that are not particularly liquid, so you're stuck with it?

[1] Although it looks like St. Kitts has a donation option as well.

<comment><USER14> Several country's programs have the visa get renewed every X period (e.g. yearly) and for the renew to go through the investment still has to be in place.

So typically you have to invest that amount up until you get either change of status or citizenship. So 2-5 years depending on country and their rules.

I will say that many of these programs don't seem to have kept pace with inflation so the US EB-5 (1 mil) for example would be 1.8 mil in 2014 if it had kept pace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Citizenship is already weird. My wife and I both being born in the US, we are tri-citizens and our descendants will also have tri-citizenship in perpetuity.

It would have been quad-citizenship if Norway allowed for multiple passports.

<comment><USER20> > our descendants

You can't pass on your US citizenship unless you have lived in the US for N years, with N being 5, IIRC.

<comment><USER3> Any child born on US soil is a automatically a US citizen according to the Fourteenth Amendment. Even the children of illegal immigrants and tourists automatically gain US citizenship at birth.

<comment><USER21> > Any child born on US soil is a automatically a US citizen according to the > Fourteenth Amendment

I wonder how this interacts with 8 USC 1401(b)? That says:

       The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
       United States at birth:
       ...
       (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an
       Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided,
       That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall
       not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such
       person to tribal or other property;

The 14th says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside". Shouldn't that make the "Provided, [...]" part of 1401(b) not be effective?

I suppose that 1401(b) would still be meaningful in the case where someone is born in the United States to an Indian, Eskimo, etc., but is not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for some reason. Then the 14th would not grant them citizenship, but 1401(b) would as long as that did not impair their tribal rights.

That raises the question of when someone can be born in the United States but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

<comment><USER5> I think you might be reading the "provided" differently than the drafter intended. I think you're parsing "provided" as meaning "so long as" or "only when". I think the drafter intended for it to mean "additionally".

I realize that "provided that" in common speech more often means "so long as" or "only when", but "provided, that" or "provided: that" in statutory text could be read as simply introducing an additional and slightly indepedendent statutory provision. I think the comma is significant here for encouraging this reading.

<comment><USER21> Ahh...that sounds right, and looking at how provided is used elsewhere in 1401 it fits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > _" Investor programs give the lie to the notion that citizenship is sacred, > in a civic sense[.]"_

It's always been a lie. To most governments, their citizens are their cattle.

</comment><comment><USER9> There is quite a bit of international law about this, from quite a while back. The article notes, "Then again, it is a country's sovereign right to decide who to let in and who to keep out—and not all countries consider fairness a priority when it comes to immigration policy," and that is largely true. But countries have obligations to their citizens in how they relate to other countries, and some of those reciprocal obligations have been tested in international law. The Guatemala v. Lichtenstein case (the Nottebohm case)[1] decided by the International Court of Justice, the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice first established under the League of Nations, decided in 1955 that international law can examine the naturalization law of nation-states when citizenship is asserted by a citizen as protection against the actions of another government. The facts in the Nottebohm case were that Mr. Nottebohm had been born in Germany in 1881 and was a German citizen by facts of birth. He lived in Guatemala from 1905 until 1943 without becoming a citizen of Guatemala, traveling to Germany and other places on business from time to time. In October 1939 (just after the beginning of hostilities in Europe in World War II), Nottebohm applied for citizenship in Lichtenstein, which granted him citizenship despite its usual requirement of three years of residence before citizenship. When Nottebohm tried to reenter Guatemala after a period of travel in 1943, Guatemala (which by then had declared war on Germany as part of World War II) did not allow him reentry, but rather interned him as an enemy alien and transferred him to Guatemala's ally, the United States. After the war, the government of Lichtenstein sued the government of Guatemala for not protecting its (Lichtenstein's) citizen. In its defense, Guatemala claimed that it owed no duty to Lichtenstein to protect Nottebohm as a friendly alien, because Nottebohm did not have sufficient genuine connection to Lichtenstein to be treated as a citizen of Lichtenstein. The international court agreed that despite the general rule that countries may decide their own laws of citizenship and immigration, when a person from one country asserts a right of citizenship against the action of another country, the citizenship relationship can be examined by principles of international law.

The bottom line for you and for me: if you buy citizenship somewhere, and then travel somewhere else, you may not enjoy consular protection or any other diplomatic representation from the country whose citizenship you bought and paid for. You may be treated as a person with the birth citizenship you started out with (or some other citizenship acquired along the way), rather than the citizenship you chose for yourself, if your connection with your new country is weak and exists on documents more than it exists in fact. So be careful how you shop for citizenship and think ahead before you travel internationally.

[1] [http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICJ/1955/1.html](http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICJ/1955/1.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottebohm_case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottebohm_case)

<comment><USER23> > it is a country's sovereign right to decide who to let in and who to keep > out

would you accept it if a country kept out black people or people who are gay?

<comment><USER24> > would you accept it if a country kept out black people or people who are > gay?

The world accepts the existence of North Korea. What do you think?

<comment><USER23> We have many evil countries because we can't do anything about it, but we don't say that it is the sovereign right of those countries to exist.

Sovereign rights are not sacred. They are a holdback from the middle ages that allow the tyranny of the sovereign.

<comment><USER24> > Sovereign rights are not sacred.

Granted.

> They are a holdback from the middle ages that allow the tyranny of the > sovereign.

Not in a constitutional form of government, where the sovereign (in most cases the majority of the voters, as represented by a congress or parliament and referenda) is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups. Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over minorities which have no recourse.

<comment><USER23> > is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups.

yes restrained somewhat. But there still are many minorities in the US whose rights are not protected.

> Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over > minorities which have no recourse.

I think you have it in reverse. In most constitutional democracies, the majorities can legally tyrannize over minorities with the minorities having no recourse at all. Unless your argument is that the US hasn't been a constitutional government for most of its history.

Anarchy is about eliminating the monopoly of violence that governments use to obtain obedience from minorities.

>> Anarchists are opposed to violence; everyone knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations. It is life based on freedom of the individual, without the intervention of the gendarme. For this reason we are the enemies of capitalism which depends on the protection of the gendarme to oblige workers to allow themselves to be exploited--or even to remain idle and go hungry when it is not in the interest of the bosses to exploit them. We are therefore enemies of the State which is the coercive violent organization of society.

>> \- Errico Malatesta

<comment><USER24> > In most constitutional democracies, the majorities can legally tyrannize > over minorities with the minorities having no recourse at all.

That's simply not true. Minority rights are growing, not just in theory but in practice, in constitutional democracies all over the world.

> Anarchy is about eliminating the monopoly of violence that governments use > to obtain obedience from minorities.

That's nice in theory, but you can't run a country on theory.

I don't accept that as the definition of anarchism, any more than I accept "The Best Person On Earth" as the definition of my next-door neighbor. In theory, it would be nice if my neighbor were the best person on Earth, but I doubt very much it's true, and I don't intend to act as if that person were utterly without flaw by removing the locks on my door.

<comment><USER23> that you say "minority rights are growing" means that you accept that minority rights are short of where they should be.

People don't choose anarchy because they want violence. They choose it because they don't like violence. Those that choose violence want to obtain the "archy"/power for themselves. Sure there are violent power hungry people that claim to be anarchists but that is not the core. They are like the Gay bashing gay people.

If you are not an anarchist, you don't get to decide who is anarchist and what an anarchist believes. That there are some violent anarchists does not mean that all anarchists are violent. It's much better to take people at their word and observe their actions, rather than to impose your own morality on them.

Kind of like telling gays that they are violent rapists and unfit to have families and marriages. As this democracy used to portray them and continues to do so.

<comment><USER24> > that you say "minority rights are growing" means that you accept that > minority rights are short of where they should be.

Everything's short of where it should be. That's reality. Tearing down this system and replacing it with another won't change that.

> People don't choose anarchy because they want violence. They choose it > because they don't like violence.

Supposedly. Ideally. That's another case of having a nice theory, which may or may not reflect reality.

> Those that choose violence want to obtain the "archy"/power for themselves.

OK, and how do anarchists stop them without choosing violence?

> Sure there are violent power hungry people that claim to be anarchists but > that is not the core.

No True Scotsman. Not very persuasive.

> If you are not an anarchist, you don't get to decide who is anarchist and > what an anarchist believes.

And anarchists don't get to decide who I consider an anarchist and what I believe. It goes both ways.

> It's much better to take people at their word and observe their actions

I observe their actions. The G8 Summit in Seattle was very enlightening.

> Kind of like telling gays that they are violent rapists and unfit to have > families and marriages. As this democracy used to portray them and continues > to do so.

Wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Emigration tends to be from poor countries to rich countries.

In my experience the poorer people in rich countries tend to be less in favour of immigration than rich people in those countries.

</comment><comment><USER26> very frustrating issue in Cyprus is that wealthy foreigners get their passport within 1-2 months while non-EU foreigners who have been living in the country for over a decade (my wife included) have to wait for at least 7 more years after applying for citizenship due to the bureaucracy.

<comment><USER25> Under EU law your wife has residency rights so what's the problem?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's a free market economy.</comment>


Ask HN: GitHub down? - <AUTHOR> https://status.github.com/<p>We are failing over a data service, you may experience exceptions and delay while receiving notifications. Apologies for the inconvenience. <comment><USER2> Github is up for me, even if the charts on [https://status.github.com/](https://status.github.com/) says the opposite.

<comment><USER3> Seems to be working for me now too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://status.github.com/](https://status.github.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Server up again within 5 minute. Kudos to Github team

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like a major outage now.

</comment><comment><USER6> not just you

</comment><comment><USER7> yup</comment>


Want to move off FeedBurner?   - <AUTHOR> http://www.launchbit.com/blog/want-to-move-off-feedburner

<comment><USER2> My first reaction when seeing this link here was "Yes, please !".

Now that I read it, I'll try it. Feedburner having been _dead_ for already a few days, as mentionned here, did help.

[EDIT] Wait, what ? I want to sign up and it's talking about _email subscribers_. I don't know what this is. I've been using feedburner all these year to get analytics on my RSS feeds, not for email subscribers.

[EDIT²] Perhaps you could state clearly what's your app's purpose is ? Does it do RSS analytics as feedburner ?

<comment><AUTHOR> FeedBurner does a number of different things from feed analytics to email subscriptions. We decided just to tackle each piece at a time rather than trying to do everything all at once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think a better solution is a way to get server side stats for RSS feeds.

</comment><comment><USER4> As far as I know, Feedburner is still delivering blog emails to the subscribers. But alternative options are always good.</comment>


Why Are So Many of the World's Best Companies Run by Indians? - <AUTHOR> http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/why-are-so-many-of-the-worlds-best-companies-run-by-indians-google-sundar-pichai/ <comment><USER2> Because 17.5% of the World's population are Indian? [https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=indian+population+perce...](https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=indian+population+percentage+in+the+world)

<comment><USER3> Ha ha. That was one funny reply.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Startup on the side - <AUTHOR>

A friend and I have been thinking about starting a company that will [insert awesome pitch here]. Problem is: I work for a megacorp (Moogle for the sake of argument (no, it's not Square Enix)). When I started I signed one of those nasty documents that gives them the rights to anything I produce that's related to their business. My question is how far should I go in my planning while still working? Should I just go ahead with my idea, build it, and deal with ownership issues later? Or should I refrain from putting anything at all in writing about my idea and keep my business plan in my head as long as I'm employed? <comment><USER2> In practice the sticking point tends to be code. Someone at some point will ask you whether any of your code was written while at your prev employer, and you have to be able to say no. No one seems to ask about ideas, because that's so much vaguer.

If you get an explicit carve-out for your side project, you're ok. Companies vary about those. Google seems to be very accommodating, more suitish companies less so.

</comment><comment><USER3> I found this from a previous HN story::

Your Specific Question :: [http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2009/01/08/what-do- you-n...](http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2009/01/08/what-do-you-need-to- do-before-you-quit-your-job-to-form-a-startup-company/)

Overview :: [http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2007/04/26/whats-on- this...](http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2007/04/26/whats-on-this-site/)</comment>