Mr. Rogers Had a Simple Set of Rules for Talking to Children - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/mr-rogers-neighborhood-talking-to-kids/562352/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The article makes an oblique reference to it, but it's worth noting that Fred Rogers graduated from a theological Seminary and his television show was his Presbyterian ministry. Mr Rogers is at the same time a sort of stereotypical Christian character (imagine _The Simpsons_ ' Flanders without the satirical comedy aspects) and also not the image of a Christian minister that we usually see in the mainstream media and popular culture.

Mr Rogers may be most _intentionally_ -Christian cultural influence that wasn't widely noticed as "Christian", in the lives of millions of people -- for both many people who don't think Christianity is a part of their lives as well as for many people who do.

I write this not to proselytize or to suggest that you should become Christian if you respect Mr Rogers, but as a reminder that the image you have in your mind of an X (for whatever X that is a large weakly-connected community) should not generalize to all X, and some very X-ey people might not look X-ey at all.

The article also shows that there is often a lot of hard work and educated insight behind things that look very simple and basic.

<comment><USER3> Whenever hardcore atheists criticize the religious, they are inevitably focusing on the worst that is done in the name of religion and ignoring all the good that is done in the name of religion. I have consistently found intensely, cerebrally religious people to be some of my favorite people to talk to. And I see so much good come from people who seat religion at the head of their table, so to speak. I wish secular folk could see and appreciate all the good that religion does.

<comment><USER4> The people who do good in the name of religion, by and large, don't need religion to do good. They may (or may not) use religion as an excuse to explain why they do good, but that's just it, an excuse, and without religion they'd almost certainly still do good.

On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of evil done in the name of religion that wouldn't be done at all if it weren't for religion. An incredible amount of hate and bigotry and oppression and violence all rooted in dogma.

People don't need to be taught how to love. But they do need to be taught how to hate.

<comment><USER5> How do you know that same evil wouldn't be done without religion? Hate and evil finds justification for itself wherever it can. Often it is religion but it can also be in culture, tradition, racism, otherness etc. I'm not convinced a lack of religion would correspond to a net reduction in that kind of evil. It might just shift somewhere else as humans try to justify their terrible actions.

<comment><USER6> I have long held that the ability to rationalize one's actions is the root of all evil. IMHO, this is orthogonal to religiosity.

<comment><USER7> That doesn't make sense to me - rationalizing your actions is a very necessary coping skill for living every day life. You have to make sub optimal decisions at times and you need a way to move on. That a person can rationalize evil decisions is unfortunate, but it doesn't take away the necessity of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of my favorite examples of public speaking is Mr. Rogers testifying before a Senate subcommittee in support of funding for national public television. He is calm, thoughtful and thorough through the entire process, speaking simply and without grandeur. It's a small wonder he found such success, and a great example of the importance of clear communication.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA)

<comment><USER9> I have a playlist of Fred Rogers videos including an AMAZING 4.5 hour interview that covers everything you could ever want to know about him: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1eNhoNMQfyH0OCAwcixA...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1eNhoNMQfyH0OCAwcixAmkkYz0tyPpln)

<comment><USER10> Hey, thanks a ton. I'm only on the second video, and it already blows my mind how the man is even more the character than the character.

<comment><USER11> There's a great clip out there of Levar Burton describing being invited to Roger's set for the first time. He says he was impressed by the character, then by how Rogers stayed in character between takes, then he saw Fred speak with his wife and realized it wasn't a character.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> An interesting article, though I don't think this bit is entirely accurate:

> because he knew that children—the preschool-age boys and girls who made up > the core of his audience—tend to hear things literally.

It's not about hearing things 'literally', but it's that children are less adept than (some) adults in dealing with the polysemy inherent in natural language, and especially in navigating polysemy based on context. The example they provide is a good case in point:

> For instance, Greenwald mentioned a scene in a hospital in which a nurse > inflating a blood-pressure cuff originally said "I'm going to blow this up." > Greenwald recalls: "Fred made us redub the line, saying, 'I'm going to puff > this up with some air,' because 'blow it up' might sound like there's an > explosion, and he didn't want the kids to cover their ears and miss what > would happen next."

So _blow up_ meaning "explode" isn't any more 'literal' an interpretation than _blow up_ meaning "to inflate". In fact, if anything, the latter is the more literal interpretation. But the point is that _blow up_ is polysemous, and the "explode" sense is common enough that children might take that to be the primary sense and (especially) younger ones might not be able to use the immediate context (nurse with a blood pressure cuff) to discard that sense as unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is just so interesting - I think these rules are more applicable to everyday communication between adults than they may seem at first glance. The point on taking a negative statement and rephrasing it to be positive reminds me of the time I spent in customer support... I feel like people react more strongly to the way something is said than the bare content of what you're saying.

</comment><comment><USER14> These rules might not always apply well to discourse between adults. On the other hand, if you are an adult who is speaking to - and leading - children, Mr. Rogers still provides a positive example of how to approach the subject. Distilling challenging subjects into simple, factual, statements without negative emotional attachments can be extremely difficult. When it works well, you provide an invaluable level of education. If it doesn't, at least you've done your best - and in general children will respond positively to the attempt.

<comment><USER15> The abstraction works well for everyone: communicate thoughtfully with deep intention and understanding. Do all you can to know the perspective and interpretations that your audience will have and work diligently to express things both clearly and compassionately.

For example, think about how much good could be achieved if the _knowledge_ of people that the advertising industry holds were used exclusively to present only messages truly in the listeners' best interest and with real compassion.

To reword my abstraction: be _mindful_ and compassionate in everything you communicate and always seek the best expert sources in improving your communication skills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have to admit that as a child I tried to avoid watching Mister Rogers Neighborhood as I much preferred cartoons like Tom & Jerry that contained frightening levels of violence looking back in retrospect.

But decades later as a parent I am incredibly grateful for the body of work Fred Rogers and his collaborators and guests created.

As an adult I see the value he created and the value millions of kids captured.

Fred Rogers was a great human being that helped make the world a better place, one kid at a time, for decades.

<comment><USER3> I think much of the value Mr. Rogers brought was just that we knew he existed. That we could carry around this archetype of pure goodness as a thing to strive toward. And the amazing thing is that you get that even if you didn't want to watch the show as a kid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Mr. Rogers sings the line "It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood," but many people growing up remember the line as "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood."

When I grew up it was "in THE neighborhood", not "this". Who else remembers this? What the hell?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL3xSctTB5c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL3xSctTB5c)

<comment><USER18> I never until this moment even thought he said "this."

But it totally jibes with the article. It may not be a beautiful day in the neighborhood where the child is watching, but it's a beautiful day in _this_ neighborhood.

Fascinating!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sure the timing of this article is not coincidentally aligned with the release of the Mr. Roger documentary _Won 't You Be My Neighbor?_ :) I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure it's wonderful.

Trailer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhwktRDG_aQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhwktRDG_aQ)

<comment><USER19> Absolutely! Every non-controversial article in the mainstream media has one _paid_ PR guru or another behind it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "..concerned that it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support from a televised figure.. ..he went back to production carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse children in that way."

In today's world, producers would probably do the opposite to up-sell merchandise and stuff.

<comment><USER21> In the world then, Captain Kangaroo did sell merchandise.

<comment><USER22> So what do you think Mister Do Bee was selling??? I was so confused as a child. Didn't he go on to develop three.js?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvdSGkN0aU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvdSGkN0aU)

"Happy Jack says it's time for Romper Room, and time for us to say good morning to Do Bee. And welcome to Romper Room. Do Bee would like you to put on your wings. Put on big Do Bee Wings and then start flying with us all over Romper Room! Come on, flap those wings!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is fascinating! I'm absolutely floored whenever I see anyone who has such a meticulous and detailed mastery of their craft.

</comment><comment><USER24> Amongst other things, worth noting how informed his approach was.

At a time when a lot of pedagogy, and professionalism regarding same, seems to be under assault.

<comment><USER25> Well - you know - those are _soft_ skills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> But was he right? Was this best? A lot of research from the 50s turned out to be bad. The article doesn't help us out here.

<comment><USER14> That depends - do you still remember to look for the helpers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's interesting that Mr. Roger's Neighborhood(the TV show) isn't a bigger deal. The show doesn't need I improving, all of the subject matter is still highly relevant in today's world, and it's entertaining.

<comment><USER2> New episodes stopped over 15 years ago, after a 30 year run. It played in reruns for at least another 10 years (I'm not sure if it's still airing), and the animated spin-off has been airing new episodes for the past 6 years.

It's still kind of a big deal. It's aimed at pre-schoolers, so you won't find too many teens and adults talking about it online much.

Old stuff always gets stale, and does so more quickly these days where fashion and technology change so quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't have any idea why the top comment here is about Christianity. Understanding the psychology of small kids and good communication practices has nothing to do with religion.

It's a great read. I'm not as taken with the nine steps at the end for how to speak Freddish. I do agree with some of the steps, but not all.

Some of those steps are a good communication practice with any demographic, such as framing it positively. The mind has some trouble with statements framed as "Don't do X." Modeling what does work is generally vastly more effective, efficient and comprehensible.

<comment><USER29> > I don't have any idea why the top comment here is about Christianity.

People around here don't like Christianity. See the TV show Silicon Valley S5E4.

You wouldn't see a thread about the merits of being Japanese, female, or vegetarian in a tangentially related HN post. People put religious identity in another category for some reason.

<comment><USER28> That's a funny thing to read here given that two of the top three people on the leaderboard very publicly admit to being Catholic. My impression is there are quite a lot of Christians on HN and most of them just don't wear it on their sleeve while posting here, which is as it should be, in my opinion.

Additionally, as a woman, I see threads derail on the detail of gender identity a lot. I have spent nearly nine years working at making it possible to post as openly female without irrelevant questions about my gender routinely derailing discussions that I choose to participate in.

<comment><USER29> Right. People are pig-headed about gender, but people generally don't deny that women deserve respect as women. And they generally don't argue that diversity of gender is worth celebrating.

The top comment in this thread is basically celebrating Fred Rogers as a Christian and there are many threads and responses arguing that the Christian part is irrelevant or even despicable. I would expect analogous comments about women to be moderated out of the picture here. And I have seen that happen.

I can't say why Christian members of the HN community aren't more outspoken about this shortcoming in tech diversity culture. I suspect the answer to that question is fairly personal and complex.

As to "wearing on their sleeves", I don't see that happening much at all. On the contrary, I see people behaving much more in a closeted manner if anything. I don't think that's healthy for anyone.

<comment><USER28> My original point was that this was a good article about communication best practices. Sadly, that element seems to have been given short shrift in favor of mostly discussing religion, which I am guilty of participating in. The vast majority of the discussion here is not about principles and practices of good communication, a thing I would have very much enjoyed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I agree 100% with Berkeley Breathed when he wrote:

Mister Rogers: Welcome to my neighborhood, boys and girls!

Did you enjoy meeting Senator Kravitz today? I did. He told us about something called "inflation," didn't he? Can YOU say "inflation?"

Opus: Inphlabph.

Mister Rogers: Good! Can you say "Mister Rogers should be paid more dough?"

Opus: Mister Rogers should -

Mister Rogers: Can you put it on a postcard?

[https://78.media.tumblr.com/dad9d0c81aab7c572572e6151483dd8c...](https://78.media.tumblr.com/dad9d0c81aab7c572572e6151483dd8c/tumblr_ntspnv3GTR1t3i99fo10_1280.jpg)

I believe that was a Soupy Sales reference:

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greenmail/](https://www.snopes.com/fact- check/greenmail/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OGy3Kh7yM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OGy3Kh7yM)

Here is Mister Rogers talking to the children in Congress, successfully asking them to send him millions of little green pieces of paper:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA)

</comment><comment><USER30> LOL. I'm purposely using complicated language with my kids. They many time get only gist of it but its lot of fun. For example, instead of saying "go ask you mom", I would purposely say "Have you considered proposing this question to your mom?". I'm not sure what child psychologists would say about this.

<comment><USER31> I agree with this approach. They understand the message, and learn a richer and more complex vocabulary and language in a natural way, which may eventually lend in more subtle and complex mental model.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you create a new (recognized by UN) nation? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Regarding 4: It seems difficult [1].

And also [2].

In short: Declaration of independece - easy. Recognition - not so much..

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Imagine to have enough money to be able to buy a sizable chunk of land, anywhere on earth. Imagine also that you wanted to create a nation from scratch, and maybe invent a new crowd-sourced constitution, laws, etc. Assume that great powers wouldn't see this as dangerous (otherwise, your story will be very short). What would you do?

Sometimes I dream of owning an island and creating a new nation where rules make sense and people live in relative harmony. I think such a world shouldn't be too hard to design, but rather very hard to "bootstrap". I know it's only a fantasy, but today I was wondering what would you do to create such a nation.

Thoughts I had so far:

1) pick an existing small nation and convince a faction to declare a secession.

2) pick an existing small nation, become its president/ruler, and de facto apply your new rules to a pre-existing nation.

3) 2) pick an existing small nation, become its president/ruler, and rule that a chunk of the country will become a separate country alltogether.

4) Buy an abandoned island or offshore oil platform, and find a loophole in the diplomacy system which will later allow you to declare your territory as an independent nation.

5) Claim that a certain territory has sovereign status based on its past (e.g. an Indian reserve in the US territory, possibly the example less likely to succeed of all places).

6) A few other thoughts that I just abandoned as they are plain impossible.

<comment><USER3> 4) has already happened: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand Good luck getting the UN to take your oil platform seriously though when they won't recognise Somaliland (population 3.5M, far more viable as a state than Somalia and not involved in any proxy disputes with Security Council members)

2 and 3 are the more standard route, but it's not so much "creating a new nation from scratch" as trying to reform it in your own image. Judging by the number of nations that owe a very large amount to one person or small group's particular image, the notions of relative harmony and rules that make sense vary quite considerably...</comment></comment>


Google to introduce voice search for desktop users (beta) - colin-de-vries http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Google_to_introduce_voice_search_for_desktop_users-nid-83032-cid-2.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I picture Scotty from Star Trek IV: "Hello, computer."</comment>


Building a Star Wars API: An Update - <AUTHOR> http://phalt.co/building-a-star-wars-api/

<comment><USER2> Hmmm... Now someone has to take all the detection algorithms from facebook (for detecting who your close friends are, who your spouse is, ect.) and run them on the Star Wars characters.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been working on something similar for Doctor Who and I have nothing but sympathy. Best of luck!</comment>


Find AI jobs in Switzerland - pat-jay https://ai-jobs.ch <comment><AUTHOR> This is nice but isn't the problem with Switzerland more about getting a visa and less about the availability of jobs?

<comment><USER2> If you are an EU citizen, no. If you are from elsewhere, then yes. But many of these companies have the possibility to get you a visa. The question is if you have very strong credentials, so that a canton (quotas are assigned by canton) gives up one of the allocated visas for you.

<comment><USER3> And if those companies really want someone there is always a way, regarding how they advocate not finding anyone in Switzerland able to fulfill the role.

I remember a few quite creative reasons, as I lived there before the EU agreements.

<comment><USER4> Do you also remember how there's no way to get a job without a Swiss Arbeitszeugnis?

Then there's also the fact that the EU immigration has been clamped down on, as Switzerland chose to exercise the quota clause of the bilateral agreement.

<comment><USER3> I surely do remember, as I was never able to upgrade my student Visa.

However I also remember getting to know people whose application was kind of sponsored, which was what I was referring to.

I am just speaking of companies willing to go the extra mile to prove that (in theory) no Swiss or foreigners with Permis B or D (not sure about the letters) were found.

<comment><USER4> One would have to be exceptional with an extremely rare and recognised specialisation to get sponsored nowadays (even back then, it was the same deal).

The Swiss don't want any immigration or immigrants, not even from the EU any more, let alone from anywhere else. They are taking measures to close Switzerland off. The population doubled in the last ten years and the infrastructure can barely cope with such rapid population growth, not to mention social security and skyrocketing medical insurance costs.

Whoever made it into Switzerland, made it, but it's over. They are the servants of the secret fire. None shall pass. That is the way of the Swiss, and the Swiss keep it. The way is shut. None shall pass! The way is shut.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Shouldn't they find me?</comment>


Ask HN: How should I take advantage of unlimited PTO? - <AUTHOR> I'll be starting at a company soon that has an unlimited PTO policy. For context, this is a large (15k+ employee) enterprise software company that is known for having a good work-life balance.
I have seen this policy maligned often on HN ("unlimited PTO == no PTO", etc.), but from my personal observations at my internship at the company, people were able to take significant advantage of it. One of my teammates was encouraged by our manager to take a two-week vacation after we finished a release cycle that he'd put a lot of extra effort into.
For devs who work with (and like) unlimited PTO: what are the advantages? How have you utilized it, or how do you regret not using it sooner?
For managers with employees in this system: When (if ever) have you felt like you were being taken advantage of? Do you like or dislike the system, both for yourself and for your team(s)?
I'd like to make fairly frequent use of PTO, as I believe strongly in having a life outside of work and in mental recuperation, but I also really don't want to seem like a slacker. Any thoughts would be appreciated. (Aside from "go work somewhere with 4 weeks vacation" -- I'm quite excited about this job!) <comment><USER2> "Unlimited PTO" is the biggest scam ever.

1) It is a lie. It is certainly NOT "unlimited" in any way, shape or form, and everyone knows it. Can you take 10 years off? How about 1 year off? How about 6 months off? Nope. "Unlimited" is a lie. There is a limit. But now it is a "secret" limit.

2) Unlimited PTO = Limited PTO and the limit is 100% determined by your manager. If you manager likes you, your secret limit will be high. If you manager does not like you, your limit will be low or even ZERO. Unlimited PTO means a manager can just refuse to approve any of your requests and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

3) Unlimited PTO means extra confusion for everyone. Instead of knowing that you can count on 2, 3 or 4 weeks vacation, you simply never know how much time you can get. And this time can change at ANY time.

4) Unlimited PTO means unequal time off for people. Some people will get to take more time off than others. It is guaranteed to be unfair and guaranteed to be gamed. Basically, it encourages people to take time off early for every excuse (instead of saving time up). Also, it encourages lying. You want to take some time off, better to claim that your kid is sick than to be honest and say you want to go to a baseball game.

5) Unlimited PTO = no privacy. Now you have to explain and justify every time you want to take a few days off. When you have 2, 3 or 4 guaranteed weeks off, you just say "I wish to take my X weeks off at these times". You do not need to explain that you going to just lay in front of the TV and binge watch 90's shows. But with Unlimited PTO, there are no guarantees. So now your manager can demand that you justify every request. Instead of notifying, now you have to beg.

6) Unlimited time off is am employee-hostile position. Imagine if a company offered a "unlimited salary". You get paid whatever your boss wants to pay you every month. It might be zero or it might be a million bucks. Would you agree to that? No. No one would. Then WHY would you agree to an unlimited PTO?

<comment><USER3> >Then WHY would you agree to an unlimited PTO?

Because not only does my employer have unlimited PTO policy, it has a mandatory minimum PTO policy.

It also has a mandatory minimum duration PTO policy.

As an employee, I MUST take at least 20 working days off per year, and among that time off there must be AT LEAST 10 working days taken off in a row, measured Monday - Friday for two weeks.

And federal holidays don't count for those 20 working days (though they do count for the two week minimum).

If I want to take two days off to binge-watch Seinfeld, I mark Thursday and Friday as "off" in our company app and my manager swings by my office and says "How's Project-X going?" and I say "on schedule" and he taps "approve" on his phone and then we talk about how I'm just going to lay around in my boxers and watch Seinfeld for four days in a row.

Of course, he already knows that Project-X is on schedule because he's in Mattermost the same as I, he just happened to pass by on his way to the cafeteria and wanted to chat about his new OneWheel and how awesome it is.

If, in December, you have not met your quota of 20 working days off, they order you to not come in for the balance counted back from New Year's Eve, not counting Christmas Day, and that is non-negotiable. They even suspend your accounts for the last two weeks of the year if you haven't met your two week obligation.

<comment><USER4> That sounds pretty great, have never heard of another company doing something like that.

<comment><USER5> That sounds pretty standard for jobs in Germany, though. I get 30 days of vacation a year (!= sick days) that I'm required to take, otherwise my boss sends me angry mails.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I worked at 2 companies with unlimited PTO and didn't like the experiences at either company. In reality, there would be a real number management expected you not to go over.

I would take more PTO than expected and then get verbally told, "for your position, you are taking more than your peer group."

What I would do is have an upfront discussion with your manager to clear out what is within expectation. Is it 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks?

The problem with unlimited PTO is that sometimes you can feel guilty taking more, because you aren't entitled to it unlike a set of PTO you would get at any other company.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I think given unlimited, I'd make it clear to my manager that I expect that to mean I can take 25 days off, and possibly more if I absolutely have to. As long as that understanding is there I don't think it's necessarily a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't have a direct answer for you but as someone who hires for my own business, I hate unlimited vacation bullshit. It puts the pressure on the employee to decide what is reasonable and also the company gets away not paying any minimum un-used vacation time (which employees deserve).

I would have a "minimum" vacation days policy if we do use unlimited but then it defeats the purpose for employers who want to NOT pay for any un-used vacation days. Just do 4 weeks and be done with it if you can afford it.

<comment><USER9> It's even worse than just putting pressure on the employee. my manager has a number of days he thinks is reasonable, his manager has another, and his manager has yet another - and at one point a minimum was higher than another's maximum.

It really isnt fair, I don't know employee who actually considers it a benefit. It's like a contract, just write it down so everyone knows what to expect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If companies really wanted their employees to use their "unlimited PTO" then they would also include a MINIMUM usage (e.g. 4 weeks a year minimum).

The actual reason "unlimited PTO" exists is to reduce total PTO and so companies don't have to pay out unused PTO in certain states (the states were "unlimited" is coincidentally popular).

As to "how to best use it?" that's very job/manager specific.

<comment><USER11> On your first point: In UK there is a minimum usage _by law_. For full-time workers that's 28 days paid leave and that includes typically 8 public holidays. Not sure if that applies in US though. I agree with you on the other two points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The company I work for has unlimited PTO and I really enjoy it. Even if I don't use significantly more than if I had a set number of days, I really appreciate having the peace of mind that comes with it. I don't have to worry about running out of days by the end of the year or rationing my days to accommodate a long future vacation.

I've had a week-long vacation planned for almost a year now that is coming up later this month. I also recently found out that my entire immediate family, who are all spread across the country, have a week period in February where we would all be able to get together for the first time in years. So I am taking another 8 day vacation three weeks after my first one. I don't think that would be possible without unlimited PTO.

I think it really depends on the company. I am sure the stories are true that companies use unlimited as a way to guilt people into not taking vacation, but it sounds like you found a place where that's not the case. As long as the company culture is there, unlimited PTO is definitely a nice perk to have.

<comment><USER11> Yes, the peace of mind that comes with it is a good point. I do really appreciate that aspect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Unlimited PTO usually ends up being a confidence trick to guilt people into even less time off. If it was truly unlimited, few people would show up. If people just need to work the hours to finish the work, that is already happening and/or there is not enough work. No interpretation seems to favor the employee in the long run. This is merely my observation and opinion.

</comment><comment><USER14> Unlimited PTO is not unlimited. It's a financial sleight of hand to reduce the liability on the company's books.

</comment><comment><USER15> Unlimited PTO... the best way to approach this IMHO is to set your own limit. Make it reasonable 15-20 days, this is depend on a number of factors only you can determine, then keep track yourself of the days you ask off for PTO. If you get pushback you have your records to show exactly how much you've taken and you can help ease some of the guilt these systems were created to make you feel.

Unlimited PTO normally results in people taking less PTO because they feel guilty or don't see their peers taking PTO and they want to be a team player. Fuck that noise.

Do good work. Make yourself take your self-created PTO time/limit. Look for another job if you hit their hidden limit and it's much lower than you would have accepted had you known (ie. after taking 10 days you start to hear BS about taking too much PTO).

</comment><comment><USER16> I work at a company that does unlimited PTO as well. I think the best way to go about it is take off two/three large breaks (2weeks+) throughout the year and then many small breaks scattered (2days). Good managers will not mind as long as you're completing your work.

<comment><USER17> >as long as you're completing your work

"completing" work is as wishy-washy of a term as "unlimited" PTO.

I've been on a project for 5 years, and it's still not done. Is any forward progress "completion"? How much forward progress is worth how many days of vacation?

Is my work "complete" whenever it's released to users? Or never "complete" because the backlog has never been paid down?

Is "complete" a function of how much I get done relative to how much was expected of me in a given time period; making my unspoken limit subject to the accuracy of schedule estimation and how aggressively management schedules?

Is my work "complete" only when we have breathing room in the schedule and it's a convenient time to take vacation? Does my unlimited PTO stop in the middle of a 2 week vacation as soon as there is a sufficiently big fire?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> jeez, talk about this kind of stuff brings out the most reactionary people on HN.

One advantage is that it's really easy to take a day or two off without thinking about it. That was my experience, I live far from my family and unlimited PTO made it super easy to take a day off every few weeks to fly out for a visit.

Another advantage/disadvantage is that it really brings out the culture. You'll learn extremely quickly how the company values work/life balance. It's either great or terrible ime.

A huge disadvantage is that unlike veritable _paid_ time off, if you are laid off, quit, etc, they don't have to pay you a dime.

<comment><USER19> I would love to know the name of this company that gives employees 5+ weeks off, including holidays.

<comment><USER11> Yeah most companies in Europe I would say. Even in a non-unlimited PTO company you'd get at least 25 days (paid) typically plus 8 paid public holidays in addition.

At some companies you can give up 'points' to get more paid time off. I think at Oracle UK I could get up to 46 paid days off by using up some perk points (actually not that many). Not sure if they still do that.

The legal minimum in UK is 28 days paid leave for full-time workers, but that includes 8 days paid for public holidays.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm currently on DTO (Discretionary Time Off) and it works great. Last year I took 7 weeks paid. If I'd had a decent justification I could have taken more. Some colleagues took a _lot_ more (like 3 months). This year I have a couple of long holidays planned so think I'll take around 10 weeks, possibly more. Only breaks longer than two weeks need to be approved by my manager.

To be legal you have to take the statutory minimum holiday or the company would be in trouble (at least in the UK), so they are quite stringent about you taking at least the statutory minimum (for full-time workers that's 28 days in UK and that includes Bank Holidays), so typically 20 days minimum excluding BHs.

The downside is if you leave the company you won't get holiday pay. For example, let's say I'm entitled to 24 days annual holiday at a non-DTO company, and then leave after 6 months, without taking holiday, I'd be entitled to 12 days pay (for my paid holiday entitlement). At a DTO company you get zilch as I understand it. I've not left yet but I think that's how it works. Something to check.

I personally think it's a great perk. Depends what your priorities are though and the above is a bit UK specific.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've had the same experiences with unlimited PTO as a lot of the other commenters.

I hit the soft cap of unlimited PTO after requesting my 16th day off in a row. I wasn't denied but had to get multiple approvals and jump through some hoops.

One thing to watch out for is when people say "if your work is done, take off whenever you want".

What that means if your manager has a lot of projects in the pipeline it means your work probably won't be "done" to their satisfaction.

The deadlines and pressures people put onto whoever approves your PTO tends to change how productive they perceive you to be...

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd start with a discussion with your manager about how this system works. That relationship may be the entire key. If someone decides "hey that's too much" it might be as simple as your manager telling them "naw he's good" and problem solved.

Knowing how that works (or just observing) might tell you a lot.

The last place I worked with unlimited PTO effectively worked that way. If someone inquired about what was going on and the front line manager said it was ok, nobody cared.

I too have heard of the "unlimited = no" stories but not experienced them so obviously every place is different.

</comment><comment><USER22> Recently, I've had an ok offer from a startup (very interesting work, but mediocre salary) that I was seriously considering. Unlimited PTO was ultimately one of the major factors which made me decide against it. I asked them during the interview if it is really unlimited - for example, is it OK if I take 5 weeks of per year? The answer was no, it's more like 2 weeks - i.e. there's clearly a limit if you ask about it. The scumminess of the arrangement made me not want to work with them.

</comment><comment><USER23> My friend had unlimited PTO at the startup she worked at (~300 people). Her boss sat her down and told her she needs to respect the companies unlimited PTO policy after she took "too much" PTO. She quit shortly after they sent her an email about following the "unlimited" PTO policy. So yes, it's scammy. Be careful!

</comment><comment><USER24> One of the advantages of manager turnover is that 2-3 weeks per manager looks perfectly reasonable for unlimited PTO.

</comment><comment><USER25> Check the "highest paying companies" thread.

One of the top comments leads to a discussion of unlimited PTO. There's a long reply in there that lays out a bunch of "here's how" bullet points. Working at an unlimited PTO place, they were right on the money.

<comment><USER26> Have you got a link to the thread?

<comment><USER25> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21973077](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21973077)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If you didn't have unlimited PTO, how much would you be happy with? Tell, not ask, your manager your expectation. This is ideally done immediately upon starting. Afterwards, act like you have that amount of a vacation, and then take it.

</comment><comment><USER28> Work hard during 3-4 months, then 2-3 week vacation.

</comment><comment><USER29> Can someone take 100% PTO?

<comment><USER12> Yes, but it will be 100% of a very short tenure.</comment></comment>


California Hits the Brakes on High-Speed Rail - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-28/california-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco <comment><USER2> It's ludicrous that we in this country can't have modern infrastructure.

One thing that bothers me, is that there is this narrative that high speed rail just somehow cannot work, and is a pipe dream, and not right for America.

We cannot afford /not/ to have high speed rail. We're already heavily subsidizing airlines to schedule flights to nowhere. And as of last time I researched it, a few years ago, there wasn't an HSR line in existence that didn't net revenue for the state.

Not building this line because of some NIMBY rich people in California is the sign of a crumbling civilization, where the elites are too concerned about their own comfort to prevent us from being left behind, technologically.

<comment><USER3> we have the best roads in the world. go to any other country, you will not find 4, 5, 6+ lane freeways that are free, have excellent signage, interconnect without stoplights or city streets, that extend for thousands of miles. i can drive to any region in the country for free on uninterrupted highway. if i drive to go skiing, i know the roads will be plowed, i can even check on the status before i drive. our roads have dividers in the middle, we have shoulders on the side, we have lines and botts dots between lanes. many larger freeways in cities now have lights.

this country has modern infrastructure

<comment><USER4> The quality of our roads is quite low compared to those in Europe.

<comment><USER5> Was just coming here to post that, there was an article recently about the new MB E-Class'(I think) lane keeping that wouldn't work on the majority of US roads since it was trained on better European roads.

<comment><USER4> The road builders there know how to paint straight lines and place the reflectors on the lines, unlike ours, who seem to have been drunk on the job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> HSR makes a lot of sense to me in general, but...

LA->SF is a _terrible_ route because of geography. SF is northwest of LA, but the first thing the train does is head 50 miles East.

The quoted fares were laughable. The proponents were claiming the fare would be somewhere around $50 when existing San Jose->Sacramento service (a much shorter route) cost $40.

The insistence on running HSR all the way into SF is a bad idea as part of the initial plan. San Jose makes a better terminus: San Jose is served by Caltrain, Amtrak Capitol Corridor, and ACE, which provide connections to most of the Bay Area.

The plan should have started with an MVP and gone from there. "Merced to Bakersfield" is not useful. I would have gone with Los Baños to San Jose which could have served commuters. Then extend it to Merced and the rest of the Eastern Central Valley to help solve the Bay Area housing price problem.

<comment><USER7> The route is a pretty poor outcome of special interests. I recall reading that the best engineering firms in the world said that we should essentially have a hub and spoke approach (i.e. you have a very straight high-speed line from LA to SF and then you have spurs that connect all of the small towns to that main pipe). Instead, the route curves around to get to every small town that wanted a whistle-stop.

I would personally love to see high-speed rail. SF->LA feels better to me but your observation that San Jose is connected to the bay area already and makes a great terminus is really good. Plus, I live in Oakland so I'd like it even more if it came right into my backyard :)

<comment><USER8> This is mostly inaccurate. The final route chosen is mostly a straight-line path (as in no undue detours) through the Central Valley, and in fact attempts by the city of Visalia to get a station were rebuked [1][2][3], as it was out of the way. Instead, it was routed through neighboring Kings county which opposed HSR from the beginning.

Other strange 'curves' in the path are for cost reasons: it's cheaper to crest the Tehachapi mountains southeast of Bakersfield than to follow I-5 up the Grapevine through Tejon Pass and through difficult terrain down to Santa Clarita. Similarly, both the Altamont and Pacheco passes were considered to cross from the Central Valley into the greater Bay Area, with the Pacheco Pass (Gilroy - Los Banos) having won out because it was a more direct path between LA and SF.

[1] [http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kings-tulare- counties-...](http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kings-tulare-counties- spar-over-station/article_da10f700-210a-11e1-aa4f-001871e3ce6c.html) [2] [http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed- rail/ci_248...](http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed- rail/ci_24889156/tale-two-bullet-train-cities-hanford-visalia-spar) [3] [http://www.cahsrblog.com/tag/visalia/](http://www.cahsrblog.com/tag/visalia/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the proposed route map, from the official HSR website:

[http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/Multimedia/maps.html](http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/Multimedia/maps.html)

<comment><USER8> and this is a badly-shaded topographic map that shows the geography of the route in context:

[http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_Topo_2016...](http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_Topo_2016.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> How much more would it cost to build it in a very straight line from Burbank to Gilroy, roughly parallel to Highway 101, right through the coastal mountains?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just got back from 3 weeks travel in Europe, taking HSR from Rotterdam to Paris and Paris to Lausanne, fast commuter (max 170 mph / average 80 mpg but they don't consider that high-speed!) from Lausanne to Zurich and Berlin to Amsterdam, and several commuter trains. For trips under 300 miles, there's no contest with air travel... top speeds are lower but there's a lot less overhead and the experience is uniformly better. Some notes:

1) You can put a train station in the city center. Yes, getting the right of way is a huge pain but it simply isn't feasible to put an airport in the center of a city. This means minimal commute times to the airport—in contrast I have twice spent more time in traffic from LAX to downtown LA than on the plane from SFO to LAX.)

2) HSR requires far less security theater because, you know, a train isn't a deadly projectile (or if it is, it's got a pretty limited set of uses). Couple this 1) and it means that you can arrive at the central station ~10 minutes before departure. I budget 90 minutes these days when flying out of SFO.

3) Volume! A 10 car TGV Thalys train, for example, can carry 370 people. That's almost a 747-400 worth of people. And that's with seating arrangements in 2nd class that are more generous than US business class. With airplane-like density I think you could get 600-650 per 10-car train.

4) Trains are more robust to weather events: thunderstorms don't shut down train stations; snow and ice can be dealt with pretty easily.

5) Electrical outlets are standard in every seat. I know that US air carriers are trying to roll this out now, but this has been standard for a while in trains.

I find the comparison with self-driving cars odd: high speed rail is currently 20 times as efficient, but obviously it doesn't work for final-mile transportation. Maybe that will drop to 5 or 10 times with traffic control / convoying / etc., but really the right comparison for HSR in the transportation ecosystem is plane travel.

</comment><comment><USER4> If a state or national government in another first-world country had decided to build a high-speed rail system in 2008, when California did, they would have made significant progress by now -- they might even be operational on part of the line, or even all of it.

When the richest country in the world can't get this kind of infrastructure project off the ground, it's a sign of serious dysfunction. There are way too many interest groups that are able to block development of infrastructure and housing projects in this country.

</comment><comment><USER8> HSR is California was always a bit of a gamble because there's three mountain chains to cross between LA and SF, which makes for expensive mountain crossings. But I'm perplexed as to why they're having cost overruns in the flat Central Valley.

After the NE Corridor, a Chicago hub network would make the most sense for high speed rail. The Northeast Corridor is already profitable (in isolation), but is also the best spot for HSR, so for another network one shouldn't expect profitability from day one.

<comment><USER10> I've lived in New York or Boston my entire life, and travel from Boston to NY and back again about 6 times a year. I've only ever ridden on Amtrak once (from Albany to NY) and it was slow, uncomfortable and expensive. To drive from Boston to NY in a 15 mpg pickup truck costs about $50 in gas and tolls, and takes a little over 4 hours under normal traffic conditions. My car is comfortable and has all my stuff in it, and it costs the same if I travel by myself or with my family of 5. The same trip by high speed rail is 4 hours 11 minutes, and costs $200 per person, and I have to get to the train station early so I don't miss my train. HSR in the northeast corridor is terrible.

<comment><USER8> 'under normal traffic conditions' \-- this is the problem, you never know if your trip up and down I-95 will take 4 hours or 6+, because of some traffic incident. Acela has a dedicated right-of-way and a (more so than automobiles) predicable timetable, enabling citycenter-to-citycenter travel for business folks. You don't fit the target market. I don't either. But for the usecase that it's for, it works very well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is just disappointing. There's nothing wrong with a large project requiring government subsidies. If you leave people to their own devices obviously they will self-organize to the best of their abilities---they will put their money towards automobile based transportation. If we, the voters of California, decide that it is worth pursuing this project then at the same time we should decide that it is worth funding it.

</comment><comment><USER12> 30 years old TGV is not possible, but somehow Hyperloop will materialize :-(

</comment><comment><USER13> The actual article has an even more shrill headline than the HN title, but doesn't support even the HN title. The only policy change in the article is a bill under consideration in the legislature (and so, not an action that California, per se, has taken) that would increase transparency of certain HSRA decisions.

So, California hasn't done _anything_ yet, and the thing it is considering doing _isn 't_ anything remotely like hitting the brakes on HSR.

</comment><comment><USER14> Can't say I'm surprised, nor disappointed. I'm a fan of high-speed rail, but this project is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with such projects in this country. A high-speed rail link between LA and SF seems like a great idea, but the plan is way too expensive ($70 billion! holy shit!) and the route is idiotic, veering out of the way to make far too many stops.

</comment><comment><USER15> The 2015 federal transportation bill allocates $48B to transit over 5 years and $205B to highways.

I've never understood why people frequently describe transit spending as a "government subsidy" but would never say the same thing about the much larger highway spending.

If you don't insist on adding tolls everywhere to make highways break even, why hold transit to a higher standard?

<comment><USER16> The federal gov collects $30-$35 billion in taxes and fees for the Highway Trust Fund. 5x that number covers most of the $205B.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> _The officials who have to make the budget tradeoffs that weren't on the ballot in 2008 are finally pushing back. The question now is when they'll have the guts to pull the plug._

      We can do "The Innuendo"
      We can dance and sing
      When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing

Don Henley - Dirty Laundry

[http://www.metrolyrics.com/dirty-laundry-lyrics-don- henley.h...](http://www.metrolyrics.com/dirty-laundry-lyrics-don-henley.html)

It is an editorial -- in other words, _opinion_ not news -- and the strongly worded title really does not fit with the content. This should not be getting taken so seriously here.

</comment><comment><USER17> FYI: Existing train (Amtrak) service in the Central Valley is being expanded currently and they are looking to expand it further. The expansion, from 6 trips to 7, went into effect June 20th. Fresno is the same city where ground is being broken on the nation's first high speed rail.

This sort of contradicts this editorial claiming high speed rail makes no sense and will not fly.

[http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article84917817.html](http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article84917817.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Trains are are a commitment to the long term future. To me they are visionary in the sense that they show confidence in stability and continuity that extends over multiple generations. Whether big engineering of this kind is actually the right choice or not is another question that I cannot answer. But I would be sad to think that America (and I'm not American) didn't have that vision any more.

</comment><comment><USER19> How much subsidies do public roads get?

Are they profitable?

<comment><AUTHOR> "Transportation officials have identified about $57 billion in repairs needed for state roads in the coming decade ..."

[https://calmatters.org/articles/long-neglected-road- maintena...](https://calmatters.org/articles/long-neglected-road-maintenance- is-now-urgent-and-expensive/)

But, though the dollar amounts are similar, this comparison is not direct, because the HSR would not cover anywhere near as many miles as all California state roads.

<comment><USER7> I would put the difference at military spending vs. everything else. The highway system was funded so that troops could be deployed quickly in the case we were attacked. You don't get that from HSR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Clearly the author of the article doesn't like the project, but what is the actual news here?

</comment><comment><USER21> Its politically unacceptable to state any public opinion about HSR other than fawning endless praise. The painful truth of the situation cut and pasted from the article:

"The high-speed rail project is a classic example of how concentrated benefits and diffused costs shape public policy, even when the general public has a direct say."

Clearly the general public isn't doing enough to help our poor starving elites get even more elite.

This does show an interesting business model, try to find something blindly loved by social media signalling, then cash in with no intention of ever doing it. There are people making millions off the CA HSR phenomena.

</comment><comment><USER22> Are they considering the hyperloop then?

[http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-hyperloop- is-10x-ch...](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-hyperloop- is-10x-cheaper-than-hsr-2013-5)

<comment><USER19> No, since it would be much more expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Bring on the hyperloop!

</comment><comment><USER24> Fed-really fund it . The Fed can issue new currency to fund it. It is off the books as fed balance sheet is not counted against the deficit. Jobs jobs jobs.

</comment><comment><USER25> We can thank the GOP for having a political system that will happily spend far more money on far worse infrastructure: blacktop highways that have nowhere near the longevity of train tracks.

<comment><USER26> I didn't realize that California politics was controlled by the GOP.

<comment><USER27> Highways are federally funded. California's politics don't enter into that very much.

<comment><USER26> State funding of transportation makes up a larger portion of the budget than federal.

[http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/06...](http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069A0000001EOGZIA4)

Additionally, this measure was kicked off with a voter-approved bond measure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> i'm all for mass transit, but maybe HSR just isn't the right place to spend the money in 2016? perhaps spending all this money on making self driving cars working, legalized and a common thing would be a better choice?

<comment><USER29> That's decades from being a substitute, and throwing more money at the problem seems unlikely to alter that fact.

<comment><USER30> Many major car manufacturers expect to be shipping autonomous vehicles by 2021 or earlier: [http://www.driverless- future.com/?page_id=384](http://www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=384)

<comment><USER29> Which level of autonomy? Hint: It won't Lvl 6.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


First write the crushing counterargument, then conclude with mockery. - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/

<comment><USER2> No offense to the submitter because this is an excellent post, but the title really does not summarize the article well at all. It seems like the core of it is closer to "Beware giving credit for skepticism as an unthinking reaction." Granted, this isn't a good title either, but I didn't even realize what the title was referring to despite having read the post. Once again, I don't mean to be overly critical (I enjoyed the article), I just wish this had more accurate title.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I don't hold it against yummyfajitas though because the actual title of the article was not necessarily catchy enough for it to do well on Hacker News, so it seemed worth it to try something different.</comment></comment>


Every HN story you recently read; courtesy of your Web browser's history - <AUTHOR> http://wtikay.com/yc_news

<comment><USER2> Didn't work for me either: Konqueror 3.0.3 on KDE 3.0.3.

There are advantages to using a seriously, seriously old browser for browsing.

<comment><USER3> Or having your history disabled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would be more impressive (and more useful) if it used the topic title from HN as the link text.

</comment><comment><USER5> It didn't work. Mozilla 3.0.11 here.</comment>


Open Brain Computing Interface - <AUTHOR> http://openbci.com/

<comment><USER2> It's mind blowingly expensive. A very quick breakdown of the main parts:

ADS1299 ~38USD for 1k+

ATMEGA328P ~ 2USD for 2k+

RFDuino ~ 20USD for 10 +

Accelerometer ~ 2USD for 1k+

Board ~ 5USD assembled for 1k+

I'm also not sure I'd want to have an RF module near a 24 bit ADC.

Total is probably around 75USD for 2k+. Simple layout as well.

<comment><USER3> I was looking at mouser when you posted this and was getting fairly similar numbers (though not quite as low). The price certainly does seem high.

What sort of markup would you normally expect for relatively simple electronic projects like this?

<comment><USER2> If it's been done nicely 100% would seem fair to me for a low volume project like this. That's only my opinion however.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> People interested in DIY neuroscience might also be interested in the SpikerBox [1] and associated neuroscience course [2]. Although not in the same vein as the OpenBCI, it provides a hacker-friendly way to learn about principles in neuroscience and explore at your own pace.

[1] [https://backyardbrains.com/products/spikerbox](https://backyardbrains.com/products/spikerbox) [2] [http://mcb80x.org](http://mcb80x.org)

</comment><comment><USER5> An open source EEG hardware project has existed for years in openEEG, Olimex sells a surface-mount version with enclosure for $100 (though it is only two- bipolar channels) [https://www.olimex.com/Products/EEG/OpenEEG/](https://www.olimex.com/Products/EEG/OpenEEG/)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm very interested in this hardware, but the price has been a deterrent for me as well. I would have ordered it already for $199. But for $449 + extra for the electrodes, etc., it's a pretty serious investment for a fairly unknown device.

My main interest in this tech is to be able to build a machine learning classifier for meditative states. Then when I have that classifier, I'd like to make a simple mobile app that lets people "record" and "measure" their meditation sessions.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can do that with the Mindwave Mobile for around $150, and there are cheaper and more expensive versions available...

<comment><USER7> Too low resolution to do that sort of science. Mindwave Mobile is only a single channel.

<comment><AUTHOR> The device seems to be designed for Neurofeedback, and it can measure frequencies relatively accurately. It has two built-in feedback measures "attention" (mindfulness meditation) and "meditation" (more like loving kindness meditation). The raw signal can be used to develop your own classifiers/feedback measures.

Currently I think the practicality of one dry sensor on a wireless headset, combined with the cheap price, beats every competitor on the consumer level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I did some work with the Neurosky Mindwave Mobile headset. Compared to OpenBCI it is cheaper and more practical to use, but on the other hand it only has one channel and a resolution of 512hz. It is mainly useful for neurofeedback training and assisting learning technologies. It has been used for simple BCI tasks.

OpenBCI offers more channels, and I suspect a higher possible resolution. You'll have to get more involved with the hardware though, both in terms of rigging a device and electrodes, and programming the hardware on the chip (arduino). More channels means that you can increase spatial resolution, which allows for easier discrimination between mental "switches", more advanced diagnosis and feedback.

Still, keep in mind that you need to get dirty with the hardware!

</comment><comment><USER8> _sigh_

I need help. I showed this to my son (14) as a prop to encourage interest in STEM work.

"You mean I could control Minecraft with my brain?"

Yes, son, that's exactly what it would be for, so you can look at a block and make it disappear.

<comment><USER9> Whatever are his motives, if he develops the technology and doesn't crap on humanity the way the patent system allows one to do, other people will see the potentials and make good use of it. That's why academic freedom is important :-).

In other word, let him make bubbles… cf [https://gist.github.com/stoutbeard/4158578](https://gist.github.com/stoutbeard/4158578).

<comment><USER8> As long as he makes _something_ , I'm not too picky. I have a music maker, a graphic novel maker, a musical theater performance maker[1], and...I don't know, yet. Of course I'd love him to be a software maker, but all I really want is his creativity and intellect to grow through making _something_ he loves.

1\. I was in theater in high school, but I never "made" a performance. The difference is, well, acting. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Way overpriced. Emotivs epoc was $300 and did 16 channels. Or 14... I forget.

<comment><USER11> I just checked, it's 400 USD, raw data is another 300 USD.

<comment><USER10> No there is a firmware hack called emokit which allows data with the $300 headset (correction its $400 now LMAO). However, emotiv is by far the single worst company I ever dealt with. Worst product support experience of my life. Having bought one of those epoc headsets I have to say its the very definition of flimsy, a half baked buggy product with planned obsolescence and proprietary restriction built in on every level of design. Emotiv even censored their forum and deleted my username to hide how they totally fucked me over. I support the openbci guys they have done a great thing by making a open source EEG sensor kit but well they are being rather greedy in the marketing. A terrible idea because right now they need to build a developer community around the device. They should be giving these kits away.

<comment><USER12> sad to hear that! My epoc is on its way.

<comment><USER13> If you plan to use Emokit, please drop me a line (email's in my profile) if you have any issues. I'm no longer the maintainer, but I like to keep abreast of its usage, and want to make sure that it continues working for new devices. (For context, I'm the original reverse-engineer behind Emokit.)

<comment><USER12> Awesome, will do! (and yeah, I've got emokit starred already :) )</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ratings Now Cut Both Ways, So Don't Sass Your Uber Driver - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/technology/companies-are-rating-customers.html <comment><USER2> > _Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the rental economy — taking > its cue from the Internet in general — sees everything as either horrible or > great, with little room for nuance. Lyft nods to this when it tells > passengers reviewing drivers that "anything lower than 5 indicates that you > were somehow unhappy with the ride." Drivers can be dropped from their > services when they fall below 4.5, but it is unclear what it takes to get > banned as a passenger._

I've never used Lyft, but as an Uber customer, it seems like someone at Uber graduated from college and, either as a result of, or in a sly commentary on grade inflation, created an ambiguous rating system that encourages rating- inflation, while penalizing drivers based at the whims of what riders consider "4-star" to be.

4-stars on every other rating service, is pretty solid...yet if a driver averages 50/50 on both 4s and 5s, they are sanctioned (from what I've heard from drivers, the rating-cutoff can shift depending on the area and excess of drivers...in Silicon Valley, it might be higher than in other locales, for instance)...I've never given a driver less than 5-stars because I've never received _awful_ service (though, certainly, I've had drivers who were late, or cars that were messy)...it's bad enough that they're scraping by, I don't need to pile on by giving them a slight demerit that could end their driving. But since the star-rating is basically a binary system, why not just make the question, "Were you satisfied with your ride?" and solicit the user for comments if the answer is the rare "No"...such a system would garner real feedback and improvement, at a very small price in the sensory satisfaction of clicking on a star (this might also prevent the problem of fat-fingered/drunk users accidentally giving a low rating).

<comment><USER3> I agree completely. A binary yes/no would be a lot more useful in gauging customer satisfaction with drivers. When 5 stars is "yes" and 1-4 stars are "no," Uber forsakes the gradient system that, as far as I can tell, is the only merit of star rankings.

That said... Amazon has likewise mutated star rankings. What was the statistic, that 80% of Amazon's products have a 4-5 star ranking? For any given listing, 5 stars indicates satisfaction, 4 stars indicates likely problems, and 3 stars indicates serious defects. I've never seen 1 or 2 star reviews except on long-tail products with less than a handful of reviews. Despite turning star rankings into blunt instruments, Amazon still features probably the most valuable, extensive reviews on the internet.

<comment><USER4> I definitely agree with the binary yes/no

Also, instead of a percentage, list the good/bad ratio. 99% doesn't seem much different than 98%, but the first is 99 good experiences per bad one while the second is 49.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My Uber driver on Wednesday flat out told me he won't pick up certain racial groups, because they tend to leave lower-than-five-star ratings. It was offensive, but I understand that his > 4.5 star rating is essential to his well-being.

(This is the modern day equivalent of not being able to hail a cab if you are a person of color.)

Uber & friends will need to fix that, or their drivers are going to keep cherry-picking riders to maintain their ratings and giving a lot of customers bad experiences.

Perhaps they could simply throw out the grumps' ratings (e.g., this rider rated the driver a 2, but that's normal for this rider, so just ignore it).

<comment><USER6> What was the ethnic group he said he wouldn't pick up?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had routinely given Uber drivers ratings between 3-5 stars (good, better, best), because service was always good enough that I didn't feel a need to dip lower. Then a driver mentioned that if a passenger gave him less than 5 stars, he would have been better off not taking the fare at all. That was pretty eye opening: that a $30+ fare wasn't worth being rated a 4, because of the future lost business that results from having a 4.8 average instead of a 4.9.

This was a few years ago, before Uber X launched. So even then, Uber had limited their scale (which provides 50 ratings points) such that only the top 5 ratings were acceptable. I think it has only tightened since then, I rarely see a driver below 4.8 at all.

Now I always give drivers a 5 unless something truly unacceptable happens, in which case I file a complaint with Uber. The ratings feedback loop has been completely broken for me.

It's ridiculous, and I don't see how they get the results they want when people have no idea what each rating number is supposed to mean. Some people start at 5 and remove points for issues. Some people start at 3 and only go up if you've gone beyond the call of duty. The only thing that makes sense is an up / down vote, when the scale can't be agreed upon by all participants.

I suppose that the driver -> passenger ratings might actually work as intended, since the drivers are presumably well aware of the reality of the ratings scale.

I don't think this is unique to Uber or car services by any stretch either. I have noticed that any service with too many ratings choices seems to suffer from poor ratings quality. Yelp is my go to example here. There _should_ be no shame in a restaurant rated 3 stars, but in actuality it's seen as the kiss of death to a lot of places. Here again, some people are rating as if 3 stars is the baseline, some people as if anything more than 1 is earned at great cost. When you're pulling your responses from everyone in the world, I don't think you can really get consensus on a scale that goes beyond up / down.

</comment><comment><USER8> Vast majority of humans can't comprehend how to rate any thing on more than good/bad scale. Even less people understand how you could rate some thing on 1-5 scale where whole range is in "good" category, so 1 is a somewhat good mark. One of the most obvious examples are schools. In my country before reform we had 1-5 marks. 1 and 2 were not considered valid mark but rather an absence of any score. So instead of five scale we had three scale. And since 3 was a placeholder for "passable" actual marks showing quality of the work were 4 and 5. And of course in time were invented unofficial corrections + and -, then ++ and -- etc.

So when adults with 20-30 years of supposed experience of grading quality of work can't use even a simple 1-5 system then it is obvious that general population will fail at grading even more spectacularly. And thus we have 4.5 out 5 as "awful" score :) .</comment>


Tiny Talk: like ChatRoulette, with your friends - <AUTHOR> https://tinytalk.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey there!

Introducing a little quarantine side project I've been working on: Tiny Talk.

Tiny Talk is basically ChatRoulette, but with your friends. The goal: to bring back social serendipity :)

Here's how it works: sort your contacts into groups (friends, family, work, etc.) -- or block a contact to prevent a match (other users won't ever know if you block them). Then, from time to time, you'll be invited to join a randomly-coordinated, 7-minute video chat with one of your approved, eligible contacts (or you can initiate a Tiny Talk to kick off the random matching process). Tiny Talks are double-blind, so neither you nor the person you connect with will know who the other is until you've both opted into the conversation. The only requirement is that you've both sorted one another into groups other than "Block". When the seven minutes is up, that's it! Need more time? Just call / FaceTime them back.

Tiny Talk is meant to be low-commitment (hard cap of 7-minutes), low-risk (pre-sort contacts + double blind matching) and fun (who's ready to break up the monotony of 9 to 5 Zoom?)

Available for iOS on the Apple App Store and Android on Google Play. Landing page / more info on the Tiny Talk site: [https://tinytalk.io](https://tinytalk.io).

If you do check it out, definitely share any/all ideas and feedback!

<comment><USER2> I don't understand why would I use this? It just feels that I register to something that might randomly pop-up meetings/calls with people I know? I personally don't like unexpected calls in general or calling someone without having anything to tell. It feels that if I register I would just make my life harder with no benefit in return (I can already talk with whoever I want and contact them if I feel like it).

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a great question -- we actually address that specifically in the FAQ on our site: [https://tinytalk.io/faq](https://tinytalk.io/faq) ("... another social network app? Wait but why?").

The basic emotion we're hoping to leave our users with is that feeling you get when a friend you haven't talked to in a while calls you out of the blue, just to say hi and see how you're doing. We wanted to lower the barrier for those types of exchanges, where in Tiny Talk, getting to that is as simple as pushing one button. In addition to making it dead simple, we keep the interactions low-risk (sort those of your contacts who are registered on Tiny Talk via a Tinder-style swipe workflow), and low-commitment (conversations are seven minutes - when time is up, it ends - no run on convos).

Concretely, the value prop we hope to deliver (which we've so far gotten good feedback on from our first few dozen users) is creating a fun, low-commitment way to have the sorts of social run-ins you might expect to have when walking around your neighborhood, hanging at the park, walking the isles of your local grocery store, which are more limited during COVID quarantine days. It's not about replacing those interactions, just giving people a bit more 1:1 connectedness when they might not necessarily have an agenda or reason to call one another, but would enjoy the run-in nevertheless.

If you do end up trying it out, would love to hear any feedback!

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the explanation! I think my question was not clear enough.

From the app description, it feels like using this would make my life worse in every way, not better. I can't really imagine a moment in my day when receiving a notification from TinyTalk would be nice to see. The best part about the random friends saying hi is exactly that, they are random and they thought about you, not because an app told them to. I do think this might work with strangers instead (but then it will just be like ChatRoulette).

I wish you luck with your project, but I honestly don't think it can work with the current pitch. I think people want fewer commitments and notifications in their life, not more.

<comment><AUTHOR> Marking XCSme as "probably not a user" :)

Appreciate the skepticism -- I'd challenge you to try it and let me know, although obviously if the value prop I laid out doesn't resonate, it's probably not worth the effort for you. Will let you know how it shakes out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Looks cool!</comment>


Ask HN: How often do you use instagram for viewing? - <AUTHOR>

  A) Daily read following stream
  B) Daily look at popular photos
  C) Weekly read following stream
  D) Weekly look at popular photos
  E) Monthly read following stream
  F) Monthly look at popular photos
  G) Never
 <comment><USER2> G/Never. I don't have an account, nor do any of my friends I might be interested in following. Also, I think those photograph filters look terrible so the service itself doesn't really appeal to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> G/Never, i never use the official instagram app to view the photos. I use better experience apps like flipboard for viewing, off late i have even stopped taking pictures via instagram

<comment><AUTHOR> When you do view with a 3rd party client, do you view your friends photo feed, the popular feed, or both?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> H) I occasionally see Instagram photos in various other social streams, but don't have the app so I don't follow anyone or see popular photos.

</comment><comment><USER5> A) I'm 22- a lot of my friends use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you ever look at the popular photos, or do you just look at your feed of friends photos?</comment></comment>


Show HN: Zoomendar - A fully gesture driven calendar for iOS - <AUTHOR> http://www.zoomendar.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's my latest work worth showing. Started it back in late October, and while it definitely didn't take me THAT long (life got in the way plenty) this is definitely more than just a "weekend project" for me.

In a nutshell Zoomendar is a fully touch-enabled calendar. Basically you navigate your calendar by swiping, tapping and pinching. I think it's the natural evolution of the touchscreen calendar. As always I'd love feedback of any kind.

Direct links:

Video of Zoomendar - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TbrBKmPruLA)

App Store - [http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftwa...](http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=642606499&mt=8)</comment>