Your heart attack bill: $3,300 in Arkansas, $92,000 in California - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/08/news/economy/hospital-bills/index.html <comment><USER2> Mildly apropos of this topic, I've had the same surgery (kidney stone removal, sorry for TMI) performed in both California and Arkansas. Random! Fancy my chances of seeing an article like this.

The procedure in AR was much cheaper, involved less invasive and expensive procedures, and was performed every bit as competently, if not more so.

When I look back at the experience, I think a lot of it came down to the sheer amount of redundancy and unnecessary procedure baked into the treatment in CA. I could speculate about the reasons why (fear of litigation being much higher in CA, for instance), though the article does a good job accounting for some of them.

</comment><comment><USER3> How is this surprising? We've completely taken the free-market out of health care. The only way it will ever be solve is if we re-introduce market forces back into the mix. The other problem is all the government regulations that tie the hands of people that would do the innovating. That's one of the big reasons California is at the extreme. They continually add requirements to medical insurance that increase the cost. The solution is simple, let the free-market, ie us, decide what we want.

<comment><USER4> You can get the free market back in health care once you can convince society in general that it's acceptable to let poor people die of treatable diseases. Until then, it's simply a question of how it'll be heavily regulated, not if.

<comment><USER5> This is a red herring. It is not surprising that the cost of care can vary wildly when the customer cannot possibly know the cost of care before purchasing it. Even a person with no immediate need for care cannot obtain the best price since no hospital will provide him or her with a price up front.

"Posting prices publicly" is not the same thing as "completely deregulating the industry" or "repealing EMTALA."

<comment><USER6> How shall emergency rooms operate? Also, how shall people make an initial determination on care when no diagnostics have yet to be performed?

<comment><USER7> "Each blood test: cost $X" "Each x-ray: cost $Y"

etc etc.

That way patients can ask the doctors if the tests are actually needed.

You're right that emergency care becomes a lot more complicated.

<comment><USER8> >That way patients can ask the doctors if the tests are actually needed.

How does this work? If a doctor prescribes a blood test, he's already said it's needed. Put yourself in a doctor's shoes for a minute. You told the patient he needs a blood test. Then he asks you whether it's actually needed.

How can you possibly say "Nah, just kidding. We don't need that one"?

<comment><USER7> One of the most important questions you can ask of a doctor is "what happens if we do nothing?"

<comment><USER8> That works for treatment, but not so much for tests. If you don't know what's going on you don't know what happens if you don't do anything.

<comment><USER9> Doctors order tests to help them choose the right treatments.

If they have absolutely no idea what the possibilities are then they wouldn't be ordering tests anyway.

<comment><USER8> >Doctors order tests to help them choose the right treatments.

No they don't, except in very rare cases. Doctors order tests to make a _diagnosis_. The treatment follows from that.

>If they have absolutely no idea what the possibilities are then they wouldn't be ordering tests anyway.

I'm not sure a doctor would have "no idea what the possibilities are" unless you don't have any symptoms. If you don't have any symptoms, why are you at the doctor's office?

<comment><USER9> > > Doctors order tests to help them choose the right treatments. > No they > don't, except in very rare cases. Doctors order tests to make a diagnosis. > The treatment follows from that.

What I said didn't contract what you said. If test => diagnosis => treatment then test => treatment.

<comment><USER8> Without a diagnosis, how could a doctor possibly know the answer to the question "what happens if we do nothing"?

<comment><USER9> I never said without a diagnosis.

<comment><USER8> It's pretty rare to arrive at a diagnosis without tests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As an outsider living in a country with socialised healthcare, the US's healthcare system honestly scares me enough to consider not working there.

I understand that insurance is almost always provided by jobs and that it can be comprehensive if the job is decent, but I still fear the risk that some set of circumstances may conspire to leave me uncovered for something, or that the insurance situation might be sticky enough that although I am 'covered', I must wear the out-of-pocket costs whilst fighting to get reimbursed. Yes, I'm paying it every year and may never use it but the nature of insurance is that I'm Doing It Right if I never have to use it.

I also struggle to align myself with the attitude that 1.5-2.5% of my wage is worth more than the safety net that I and my fellow countrymen can rely on to be mostly protected from most life-threatening health issues if and when they need it. To me, the well-being of all of the people in my society (no matter how poor or rich) is worth 1.5-2.5% of my wage.

It's certainly fascinating looking in from the outside as the US wrestles with topics such as universal healthcare, gun laws, etc. It strikes me as stemming from core philosophic viewpoints that seem to be ingrained in the US psyche but absent from many other western nations.

In the end, I'm very grateful that I live somewhere with socialised universal healthcare.

</comment><comment><USER11> The insane part is that the hospital only receives a tiny fraction of the billed amount from the insurance company, yet uninsured people have to pay the full amount.

The US healthcare system is broken on many levels, and I don't think anyone has the balls to really fix it.

Some ideas:

[1] Free basic medicare for everyone, but allow people to pay for faster/better service. This is the way it works in the UK, and it works very well. The basic service is fine for most people, but if you want a room to yourself or you want to jump the queue, you can pay to get US-style service. Overall it works out much cheaper and fairer than the US system.

[2] Set up a system that allows uninsured people to get the same rates as the insurance company. It's a bit of a scam at the moment - basically the hospitals seem to be out to screw you if you're not insured.

<comment><USER12> UK doesn't not work as described in [1], and I don't think any other country works like that.

In the UK, if you have a certain income (as low as £8,000), you must pay for national insurance, whether you like it or not, whether you're going to use it or not. If you want to use the faster/better service, that is private insurance, then you have to pay for your private insurance, as well as national insurance, both in full.

<comment><USER13> "whether you're going to use it or not"

Wat? This is the exact use case of insurance. It protects you should you need it, but ideally you won't.

<comment><USER14> The point is, you're forced to pay for the government "insurance" (which is actually called insurance, although it's not actually insurance), even if you have private insurance on the side that pays for most things the government insurance would, and more. Thus, "don't need it".

<comment><USER11> But NI covers other stuff such as unemployment. Also, I'm pretty sure it's still cheaper than US health insurance in total.

<comment><USER14> No, NI is just tax. It doesn't "cover" anything.

The point still stands: even if you have private health insurance, you still have to pay your share of the NHS, even if that share is not a line-item anywhere.

<comment><USER7> > It doesn't "cover" anything

Yes, it does "cover" other stuff, and gaps in your NI payments can leave you not getting that other stuff. That's why you're allowed to top up your NI payments.

EDIT: Also, while it's true about health insurance (if you go private you have to pay both) it's not true for pensions. You get a reduced rate of NI if you opt out of the national pension scheme and opt in to a recognised provider.

<comment><USER14> "Other stuff" is state pension. Which is an earned entitlement, not an insurance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just want to clarify a few things, as it would be charitable to say that there are a few misunderstandings in this thread. I am working on a company that is trying to solve some of these issues; this is a complicated industry that I am still learning much about: hopefully some of what I have learned will be of interest to some of you.

The PPACA (Obamacare) is seeking to address this very issue by changing medical reimbursement form a fee-for-service model (e.g. $40,000 to remove a splinter and $10,000 for blood tests and $5,000 for aspirin) to a capitated payment model with additional incentives for providing good outcomes (providing good service). This means that a caregiving organization would get $N a year to care for you, as a male patient with a heart disease in your mid fifties, with N varying as demographics and conditions change.

This change will necessitate a sea-change in the way doctors and other caregiving organizations will treat their patients. In fact, it will result in the creation of a new type of healthcare organization (accountable care organizations, or ACOs) with the primary purpose of bringing down the costs of healthcare (and improving health outcomes).

This is a paradigm shift in medical practice.

CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is spearheading this change; something which would be virtually impossible to do without such a large (read: government) player taking the first move. There are a million problems with CMS and the government in healthcare, but this is one of the greatest things they have ever done.

<comment><USER16> If ACOs are similar in spirit to corporate wellness programs, I think they are going to take paternalism and nagging to a level we can not even yet imagine. It wasn't long ago that we were talking about the patient who was educated about their condition, but now it seems we're to form major financial engagements with organizations whose central premise is that they care more about our health than we do -- scary!!

<comment><USER17> To me, the scarier thought is a new conflict between hospitals and pharma.

Currently, drug companies market directly to consumers. consumers ask for drugs from doctors, and get prescriptions health care companies have to pay for. Doctors have no reason to deny patients what they want (and the sexy pharma rep keeps encouraging them too).

In the new system, the same "entity" writing the prescription is paying for it, as well as "paying" for the cost of not taking it.

I imagine doctors will have an incentive to examine the cost/efficacy of a drug, but pharma will hate that. To get around it, pharma will probably launch marketing saying "if your doctor doesn't give you this drug, shes killing you".

ACO's fighting drug companies, using the human psyche as the battleground.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Want lower prices? Encourage a system where people directly pay their own money.

If all cars cost a $1000 co-pay no matter what car you bought, who's gonna buy the Honda Accord? However, throw price into the mix and Honda Accord becomes a very popular choice.

There's no huge, magical saving of money by running all medical spending through insurance providers. In the end the doctors are going to get paid. It is a matter of whether you pay them directly or pre-pay an insurance provider and they pay the doctor. Insurance is about mitigating the risk of rare but financially ruinous events (eg, cancer or serious trauma). There isn't any risk to mitigate with a flu shot or a bad cold or a mammogram. You insure your car against accidents, not oil changes and flat tires.

As for the poor problem, that can be solved separately by providing the poor a stipend for health care. No need to re-architect the whole system because it doesn't work for 100% of the population.

<comment><USER19> The problem with that is that buying health care is far more complex than many other purchases. Now doctors simply will not provide an estimate for their services, and when you visit the doctor you don't know what kind of procedure they will have to perform on you at the visit.

In my view the system is so screwed up that will end up socialized pretty soon.

<comment><USER18> I think if people have to start paying their money, they will not tolerate that kind of behavior from doctors. Think about when you take your car to the auto mechanic. Generally you pay some money for diagnosis. Then if the mechanic recommends a fix that is cheap, you let him just go ahead. But if the fix is very expensive, you might call around several places to make sure the price is reasonable. Of course, you'd never call around if the price was a $20 co-pay no matter which mechanic you went to.

Certainly, not the perfect analogy, but I think it points to the ridiculous nature of our current system and how such a ridiculous system will of course lead to costly behavior.

This analogy is for more predictable things like shots, checkups, bad colds, etc. For catastrophic illness and trauma, that's why you have insurance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Health care in the US is the most broken one on this planet (I have been in Hong Kong and China). It is even worse than the communism countries like China. In China at least all the prices are listed before you decide to take the treatment. And the price is the same for everyone. Not to mention it is much lower than in the U.S. (abdomen sonogram is like $30 or less while in the US you can easily get billed $1200).

The ultimate solution IMO would be globalized free market just like the IT industry. If doctors and medical professionals from other countries can come to the US as easy as software engineers, I would expect the cost will go down to a level that we don't even need to be insured.

<comment><USER21> This is absolutely a reality I am vouching for. Right now the AMA (American Medical Association) actively places roadblock in the way of foreign doctors who want to practice in the US by forcing them through additional testing and years of training. We commonly joke that the purpose of one of our medical exams, Step 2 CS, functions to weed out foreign non-English speaking doctors (there is a whole section of the exam devoted to english proficiency), and for AMA to profit from the exam admission fee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It always surprises me to see to see my state (Arkansas) in a headline.

Just wanted to throw out there that Arkansas actually has pretty good hospitals and whatnot. There are a strangely high number of multinational companies (Tyson, Walmart, Axciom, JB Hunt, among others) based here who donate lots of money to various institutions, most notably UAMS (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences).

</comment><comment><USER23> A North American friend of mine went to Cuba a few years ago. He had a piece of glass in his elbow that had been there for a few years. He knew it would cost at least $700 to have it removed in the US, so he never did it. When he was in Cuba, he went to the hospital to have it removed. They did it, straightforward, normal hospital. The final bill? $7. That's SEVEN dollars (although he paid Cuban currency, of course).

This same friend was in Papua New Guinea a few years before that (he lived there). Similar story - he was cutting wood and hit his toe with an axe. It wouldn't stop bleeding after a long time, so he went in to a local hospital and got stitches. I forgot what the exact bill was, but it was on the order of $5 (five US dollars). Again, it was a normal hospital, not some grass hut or something.

I'm not sure what this all means, except that if I need some expensive medical care that I am able to plan ahead for, I plan to look at places like Thailand for reasonable health care costs. Emergencies, of course, are different, so I may have to go to an American emergency room in that case. And I suck it up for my yearly physical (around $150).

</comment><comment><USER24> It should be no surprise that the more government "regulates" and subsidizes health care, the more expensive it gets. And the answer to high costs is always more regulation!

I keep reading more about doctors who are opting out of the medicare system and switching to cash-only services. In the name of providing care to all, the system is breaking down and stratifying. Obamacare is an abomination of payoffs to special interest that will do _nothing_ to reduce health care costs.

Health care must be rationed. It is a finite good. The question is how it gets rationed. Market forces? Private insurance? He who can pay? Whoever the government decides gets it? The bottom line is that the more government decides who gets it, the more expensive it becomes. There's gotta be a happy medium, and my intuition informs me that the happy medium is closer to the free-market side than the mega-regulation side.

<comment><USER25> > Health care must be rationed. It is a finite good.

Instead of FWD.us initiative of bringing over competent technology people from abroad, maybe we should instead try to attract more doctors/medical professionals from India/China into coming here.

<comment><USER26> I don't think that is the answer. Can every student in the USA who is willing and capable of being a doctor get into med school? I would guess that this is probably not the case.

Increasing the number of doctors produced locally would seem to me to be a much easier way of increasing supply.

<comment><USER27> > Can every student in the USA who is willing and capable of being a doctor > get into med school?

No, but it's not because they aren't good enough. In grad school, I TA'd a physics class for pre-med students, which were widely considered to be one of the most miserable and obnoxious groups to teach. Each student felt entitled to an A, even though the department mandated that only 25% of students could receive an A. In reality, probably more than 80% of the class earned an A, and I would have felt comfortable that most of the rest were smart enough to one day give me medical advice.

Yet, less than 45% of people who applied to one or more medical schools [1] are admitted (and this is a self-selected group: those without 4.0 GPAs, three extra-curriculars, and a side-business of helping old ladies across the street generally don't apply). I would estimate that only about the top 15% to 25% of the class actually applied. So, from undergrad pre-med to MD, there is about a (hand-wavy) 90% attrition rate of people who are probably smart enough and probably willing to work hard enough, and who have the desire to become doctors.

> Increasing the number of doctors produced locally would seem to me to be a > much easier way of increasing supply.

I agree, but the medical profession is not willing to allow this to happen. Each medical school has a quota, and nobody wants to rock the boat. The trouble is, there isn't really any way to force medical schools to admit more students.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'd highly recommend checking out the linked dataset.[1] One quick observation: subtract Average Covered Charges from Average Total Payments and sort to see what procedures are most overcharged: 7 of the top 10 are "207 - RESPIRATORY SYSTEM DIAGNOSIS W VENTILATOR SUPPORT 96+ HOURS". Average overcharge among those top records is 601K. What is going on that they routinely charge 601K more than they collect?

I'm excited to see what all everyone else comes up with.

[1] [http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and- Systems/Stat...](http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and- Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge- Data/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> Here's a quick and dirty visualization of the distributions for each kind of care across lots of different hospitals: [https://www.statwing.com/open/datasets/c5fc084c00d24cf221c17...](https://www.statwing.com/open/datasets/c5fc084c00d24cf221c1727fb9e4f179fb32e860#workspaces/3934)

Other visualizations today:

NYTimes -- [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/business/how-m...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/08/business/how- much-hospitals-charge.html)

Washington Post (low on the page) -- [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/08/o...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/08/one- hospital-charges-8000-another-38000/)

</comment><comment><USER30> I went through a cardiac event, and in the end it cost me $12,000.00 to find out I was fine. That was just the cardiac part of the testing. I also spent a grand or two to find out where the problem lie neurologically. Turns out the same nerve that allows you to know you're having a heart attack, can also have totally unrelated issues itself, and basically give false positives.

</comment><comment><USER31> A picture is worth a thousand words?

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/HC- Graph....](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/HC-Graph.jpg)

Source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_systems#Cross- country_co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_systems#Cross- country_comparisons)

</comment><comment><USER32> Within smaller areas, too: [https://twitter.com/HuffPostData/status/332244607805050880/p...](https://twitter.com/HuffPostData/status/332244607805050880/photo/1).

$7,044 vs. $99,690 between New York and New Jersey! Might be worth that drive.

</comment><comment><USER33> "Health care in the US is idiotic" doesn't really warrant a headline anymore, everybody gets it.

<comment><USER4> No, they really don't. Many people are resisting reform because they don't see why we should change a system that they see as working well already.

<comment><USER34> Do you think it's possible to show or educate those people that in fact the system is dysfunctional?

Any ideas how?

<comment><USER35> Publish data showing the disparity of medical costs across the US?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> One of the problems when we discuss "healthcare" is the wide variety of price points for healthcare. So at one end of the market you have fully insured people asking for and/or being prescribed an array of drugs. Often quite literally they take a new drug to offset the harsher side effects of another drug so that it builds to the point whereby they'll start their day with 6 - 10 different pills. At this end of the market you could apply market forces and have significant results. If people more fully feel the burden of cost with those drugs they might very well tackle the underlying causes around obesity, diabetes etc. "If you could drop 30 or 40 pounds you'd probably find you're spending $200 less per month on medication" Sign me up!

However, at the middle of the market and the most serious end of the market you're looking at procedures and ailments that can cost $10,000 to $250,000. Here, if you have free market forces at play you're asking people (including many parents) to make horrible decisions between what they can afford and what is best for the quality of life for years or decades. Some will be comfortable with that I know but it appears, given the acceptance and re-election of Obama, that the majority of people in America are more open to the government running healthcare. (I wrote a blog post where I said that the fear of being financially and emotionally destroyed by healthcare was now on par with foreign invasion. As such, just as no one wants free market forces in terms of national defense they now don't want free market forces in healthcare - shameless plug and done! [http://jmlite.tumblr.com/post/46257541683/why- healthcare-in-...](http://jmlite.tumblr.com/post/46257541683/why-healthcare- in-the-us-should-be-thought-of-as)

I think free market forces can be applied at certain price points but I can't see how it can be the driving principle across the entire spectrum. I think state run pricing and procedures that cover 80% + of the population with a legitimate private option for those with the drive or means to pay is the best possible outcome from a tough position.

</comment><comment><USER37> I imagine a large difference is the number of patients with health insurance - if Arkansas has significantly more uninsured, then they need to recoup costs on them. If California has enough insured patients, then their "cost" is a figure they expect insurance to bargain down from.

<comment><USER22> False. Arkansas has fewer uninsured.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_coverage_in_the_United_States)

<comment><USER37> Thank you for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> And my heart attack bill in Canada is $0.

<comment><USER39> You might want to reconsider your number when you file your taxes every year.

<comment> ux-app I genuinely don't get this line of thinking. I understand that the US prides itself on individualism, but I can't understand the utter lack of empathy.

I know you're disputing the 'paid $0' part of the OP's comment, however your response comes across as quite glib and seems to imply that the OP genuinely thinks that _nobody_ paid for his care.

Yes people in countries with 'socialised' health care pay for health care that benefits others. Yes this is a good thing.

Let's use Australia as an example of a more empathic way to approach this issue.

Recently there has been a federal budget shortfall. There isn't enough money to pay for a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) [1]. Our two major parties both agree that funding should come from a ($350/year) levy.

I'm not disabled. I don't know anyone that is disabled. I'm not rich so $350/year is not pocket change. All considered, I'm still more than happy to pay my share to make disabled people's life easier.

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-05/gillard-says-ndis- levy...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-05/gillard-says-ndis-levy-should- be-permanent/4670266)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think the only thing relevant about this article is the linked dataset.

<comment><USER32> Speaking of, which editors are people viewing the .csv in?

I don't get the best performance in Sublime Text 2 on a pretty decent desktop.

<comment><USER41> Excel in Office 2013, which I pay a $99/year subscription to use on 5 PCs/tablets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The amount of bullshit I've seen in the hospital gives me little faith that any policy change will solve the problem.

The real solution lies in producing safe consumer usable technology that moves all diagnostics out of the hospital. When we can get our comp, CBC, liver enzymes all with a drop of blood on a 1$ chip, when everyone and their neighbors own low cost portable MRI machines, when we can all read our EKG right on our cellphones and have it be interpreted for us 24/7 holter monitor style. Then it would only takes a team of engineers to produce software to quickly crunch all the data to produce a picture of our health... and save everyone from that expensive trip to the hospital.

<comment><USER42> So answer me this.

Why is not like every other tech startup not making medical equipment and software then? It's a market that is growing, prices are going up, the software they use is terrible.. You're telling me we can't make a device that takes an xray and is more portable, safer, faster, and radically cheaper? (just as one example) And then there is the money.. you can have 3000% variance for the same service?!? and every VC in the world isn't just begging to get in?

I just can't believe that the regulations and the red tape can overwhelm and even defeat the greed.

<comment><USER43> Several YC companies/founders have talked about how incredibly difficult it is to work in anything that even remotely touches healthcare. The regulations and the red tape create market barriers so significant/costly to overcome that many VCs don't have the resources to break into those markets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> To all the people who think the free market and medical care are compatible:

Boom! You just had a heart attack, you'll be dead inside of 15 minutes. Now, go shop around to find the best price for your treatment.

</comment><comment><USER45> >>>Your heart attack bill: $3,300 in Arkansas, $92,000 in California

And: Your rent bill: $600 in Arkansas, $2,500 in California.

</comment><comment><USER46> Somebody PLEASE do an app with this data. If I have to schedule <expensive- medical-treatment>, I would love to know which of the dozen odd regional medical centers has the lowest price. Or at least which ones have excessively large prices.

<comment><USER47> I've been working on this exactly for a couple months with a similar dataset, and will clearly now bring in the medicare data. Email me (email@example.com) if anyone wants to learn about the project or contribute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> healthcare is something that should be like water.

<comment><USER32> Even drinking water is subject to regulations, though. Nothing is ever that simple. :)

<comment><USER4> "Even"? Drinking water is heavily regulated for good reasons. It's also extremely cheap. There are a lot of other examples of highly regulated industries providing cheap services, something I wonder of others are aware of when they talk about the need to reduce regulation to cut costs.

Health care as a regulated public utility like electricity, water, and phone lines doesn't seem like a bad model to shoot for.

<comment><USER49> Except that I literally cannot find two industries that are less comparable in any meaningful way: mass produced commodity goods on one side, complex and neccesarily individual services provided by highly trained and specialized professionals on the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Bonus: you get a second heart attack when you see the bill.

</comment><comment><USER51> And death, everywhere, if you fail to look after yourself properly. Prevention is free.

</comment><comment><USER52> Serious question - can you negotiate your hospital bill like insurance companies can?

</comment><comment><USER53> Perhaps in this market, Arkansas can leverage economies of scale.

</comment><comment><USER54> A big factor as to why can be explained in two words.. "Illegal Mexicans"</comment>


Show HN: A community of learners to find best links to understand any topic - <AUTHOR> http://www.searchtrack.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks. SearchTrack is a community of learners to find best links to understand any topic - vetted, collected and annotated by others. I would love to get feedback on this. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Requiring a signup probably impedes feedback in this thread.</comment></comment>


Apple iPhone charger teardown (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-quality.html <comment><USER2> Power engineer here. Something that is not apparent is that many small power supplies are limited in power handling not by the components, but by maximum safe touch temperatures for meeting regulations (probably around the 10W level). Therefore making a more efficient power supply means that you can package it smaller since the heat needs lower surface area to dissipate safely. Right now, gallium nitride MOSFETs are gaining popularity allowing for higher efficiencies in power conversion, and some wildly high power densities for USB chargers. I'm a fan of ravpower's 30W USBc supply which is about one cubic inch with folding prongs.

<comment><USER3> Yet there seem to be no designs with any ventilation. Why is that? Are heat sinks not allowed because the case is (usually) not grounded?

<comment><USER4> Useful ventilation means holes through which someone could insert a thin metallic part (wire, needle...)

Never underestimate the ingenuity of fools. The safest design is one without holes.

<comment><USER5> You don't even need people inserting anything.

Dust is a problem on its own it can ignite from ESD and the charing causes carbon built ups that eventually cause a short.

Even when it doesn't ignite from ESD it can change the capacitance of circuits which can cause a flash.

This is compounded even more by the fact that many dust particles in cities can be conductive carbon particles form combustion, platinum and other metals form catalytic converters and fine metal particles from things like car brakes, roads and wheels are all over the place.

A lot of that black/dark grey dust that can settle around windows and other leaky parts of your house in a city isn't dead skin and dirt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm constantly amazed by these things in daily life. The charger is just barely large enough safely house a USB jack, and that safety margin is large enough to fit a high-efficiency converter.

If you are curious how it works, the Horowitz and Hill book, 2nd ed, has an extended section dedicated to describing how the power supply for the Apple II works. The iPhone uses the same technology, broadly speaking. Switch-mode power supplies were fairly new at the time, and older computers will generally use bulky, inefficient linear power supplies.

Every once in a while I come across something from before the era of small SMPS, like a constant-voltage transformer that was bundled with my color photographic enlarger. The idea is that you regulate the voltage for the lamp to make the light color more consistent, but since the technology was old, it consisted of a massive, heavy ferroresonant transformer. I ended up selling it for scrap.

The general way that you make power supplies smaller is by increasing the frequency they run at. For SMPS, this means increasing the switching frequency, but there are also some AC standards that run at higher frequencies in places where space and weight is at a premium. For example, AC power within an aircraft might run at 400Hz rather than 60Hz. The transformers are correspondingly smaller.

<comment><USER7> But higher switching frequency means more losses and thus higher temperature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The world is a better place when companies like Apple do stuff like this properly. Besides, I'd guess that well over 95% of the chargers Apple ships are bundled with a device. Possibly 99%. So the retail cost of the charger on its own is beside the point.

If you want a cheap aftermarket charger, consider products sold by IKEA. While I can't say it's an immutable truth, IKEA electronics tend to be well engineered considering their low cost.

<comment><USER9> IKEA LADDA AA and AAA batteries are some of the best I've ever bought and for the price are very hard to beat.

There are some reports and writeups that suggest that LADDA 2450 AA/900 AAA rechargeable batteries are the same as Panasonic Eneloop due to extremely similar characteristics and the fact that they very likely come from the same factory in japan because only one makes Ni-MH low discharge. For $6.99 per 4 batteries I have yet to find any that can beat these and I have been using some for years without any noticeable drop in capacity yet.

[https://www.slrlounge.com/panasonic-eneloop-vs-ikea-ladda- ar...](https://www.slrlounge.com/panasonic-eneloop-vs-ikea-ladda-are-they-the- same/)

<comment><USER10> They are basically OEM ( at least it was in 2018 / 2019 ) from Panasonic. But not all Eneloop and in fact LADDA are from Japan. Panasonic do make Eneloop from China and they are of slightly lower quality than the one produced in Japan.

I believe there are a few variant / types / size of LADDA, and there are one or two make in Japan.

Unless you are perfectionist you would want the best one from Japan. Otherwise most LADDA are good enough for 99% of its intended usage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 2 points:

1) The blog touches on it, but can you imagine the temptation of shady (and non-shady) companies out there to try to engineer a cheaper version or to cut corners to gain some of the margins charged for such a seemingly-simple piece of hardware?

2) Do you remember 20 years ago, 5-10VDC power supplies for computers used to be this gigantic ugly black brick with cooling fins that weighed 2 pounds and had embarrassing Apollo-style connector plugs? Amazing what miniaturization has achieved.

<comment><USER12> Author here. I've written a couple of articles about counterfeit chargers. You are correct; people cut every corner possible to make a counterfeit charger that looks exactly like an Apple charger. (If you buy a $3 Apple charger on eBay, this is what you're getting.) The power quality of the knockoffs is awful. They also ignore safety, so the fake chargers occasionally kill people.

For point 2, I also wrote an article in the IEEE Spectrum about the history of switching power supplies and how we ended up with such tiny chargers.

Links: [http://www.righto.com/2012/03/inside-cheap-phone-charger- and...](http://www.righto.com/2012/03/inside-cheap-phone-charger-and-why- you.html) [http://www.righto.com/2016/03/counterfeit-macbook-charger- te...](http://www.righto.com/2016/03/counterfeit-macbook-charger- teardown.html) [https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/a-half- century-...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/a-half-century-ago- better-transistors-and-switching-regulators-revolutionized-the-design-of- computer-power-supplies)

<comment><USER13> How can I know whether I have a real of fake charger?

<comment><USER14> Directly order from Apple, Samsung, etc. Definitely do not trust _anything_ that comes off Amazon or eBay.

<comment><USER13> Yes, but what if I already have a charger and I don't know where it came from?

<comment><USER14> It is probably hard to say, from the outside they often look legit. I have seen one once, but it became more apparent when we compared it to a genuine charger (usually the print is off in some way). Since counterfeit chargers typically have fewer components, apparently weighting the charger can also help finding counterfeits:

[https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/blog/how-to- spot-a-...](https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/blog/how-to-spot-a-fake- apple-charger/)

Of course, it's probably not beyond them to add some weight to make you believe it is real.

I guess if you have the right tools, you could also measure output quality.

<comment><USER4> They do add weight (and go through the trouble of implementing ring structures to fake writes)

[https://youtu.be/g8ovFkd8myE](https://youtu.be/g8ovFkd8myE)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are Anker chargers engineered well enough to match?

<comment><USER14> Can't say anything about Anker chargers. But I have been somewhat disappointed by their engineering. It is well known that USB 3 can cause interference in the spectrum used by WiFi and BlueTooth (2.4-5GHz), but their USB-C hubs seem to be particularly bad causing a lot of interference. I had one that would reliably disturb wireless keyboards, etc. I did not have the same problem with Apple or Aukey USB-C hubs/dongles.

The Amazon reviews are also full with people who encountered interference:

[https://www.amazon.com/product- reviews/B01D0WE99C?reviewerTy...](https://www.amazon.com/product- reviews/B01D0WE99C?reviewerType=all_reviews)

<comment><USER16> If it interferes that badly shouldn't the FCC or similar be having a word?

<comment><USER17> I have no idea about the interference claim, but incidental radiation within an ISM band is allowed to a great degree, that's the idea of ISM. The device may have been tuned to switch in that band to keep it affordable.

edit- I think I mis remembered this, I can't find an easy to interpret rule or graph that gives an incidental radiation pass unless you're a specific category like wireless charger. it could also be explained by conducted emissions into the laptop that other devices do better with, or just a legal level of interference that happens to be at the high end

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have more of a problem with iphone charging cables - the official ones disintegrate, and both official and non-official seem to have problems with the fourth pin getting corroded over time and the cable failing.

<comment><USER19> I'm used to Lightning cables breaking, but it's a pity that the thin, charging-block-to-MagSafe section of my MacBook charger has corroding insulation that Apple refuses to take responsibility for.

Some of their Geniuses have even tried to blame me for not storing it properly.

<comment><USER20> Do you have access to heat shrink and a heat gun? That fixed my insulation issue.

<comment><USER19> I bought heat shrink in a number of sizes, but haven't managed to stretch any to fit through the MagSafe 2 connector.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I always wondered what the specific differences between expensive original and alternative cheaper chargers were and whether the price differences were justified... "The Apple charger is higher quality and I estimate has about a dollar's worth of additional components inside. But it sells for $20 more."

<comment><USER22> And yet _all_ the USB chargers I use are Apple chargers bought directly in an Apple store. Peace of mind that the house won't burn down is definitely worth $20 per charger.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Previously on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3996171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3996171)

<comment><USER24> I'm old. I remember reading that article eight years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Two other R-C snubbers filter the diode bridge, which I've only seen > elsewhere in audio power supplies to prevent 60Hz hum; perhaps this enhances > the iTunes listening experience.

Is this really the reason? That when engineers are designing _chargers_ , they are considering the music listening experience?

<comment><USER25> Old Apple used to care about things like this. One of their primary customers were audio engineers and sound designers.

<comment><USER26> And their customers still are audio engineers, it's just that they also have more general consumers.

The new Mac Pro rack mount version basically makes no sense unless you do professional audio. Why else would anyone need a quiet rack mount server with really bad component density per U that has no lights out management?

It's because it's a studio rack mount workstation intended to coexist with other rack mount audio hardware.

Apple's hardware seems overpriced until you consider the license cost of Avid ProTools compared to paying for Logic Pro once. Apple is still quite aware that audio professionals are an important niche customer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> FYI only chargers that one one day just stopped working was made by Apple. Good they are well enginereed, bad that they just broke.

</comment><comment><USER7> They didn't even test it under different loading conditions and with transients on the input?

<comment><USER20> They did, just in a different article: [https://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in- lab-a...](https://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple- is.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Looking forward to seeing the Samsung teardown for comparison.

<comment><USER12> I wrote about a Samsung cube charger here: [http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab- ap...](http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple- is.html)

The short answer is it is slightly less complex than the Apple charger, with a completely different internal design, and it performs about the same.</comment></comment>


Awesome explanation of Bayesian probability - <AUTHOR> http://yudkowsky.net/bayes/bayes.html

<comment><USER2> flippant summary of bayesian stats: normalize the likelihood, multiply by a prior (which you can just set to whatevs).

oh, and you are allowed to assign probabilities to non-repeatable events, i.e. what's the probability there is life on mars?

<comment><USER3> _you are allowed to assign probabilities to non-repeatable events, i.e. what's the probability there is life on mars_

I get the impression that believers in the Bayesian Revolution often also subscribe to the many worlds quantum interpretation, which would make P(life on Mars) a repeatable event.

<comment><USER4> Many-worlds QM isn't a necessary assumption for subjective Bayesian probability, nor is "repeatability".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If 80 in 10000 people who read Hacker News click on that link and 80% of them read all of the page, and 9 in 200 of them would previously have voted up the link and 32% of them leave New York at 14:10 travelling at 55mph, what is the probability that one of them is Bruce Willis?

<comment><USER6> Easy: zero.

<comment><USER7> And you call yourself a geek? We all know that the answer is in fact 42!

:)

Note: Units are, of course, left as an exercise to the reader :)</comment></comment></comment>


6 hours left - Get free ebook Likeable Leadership by Dave Karpen - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GAPKWCK

<comment><USER2> Thank you!

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome. Try to upvote if you can so that hopefully others will get to see it as well. I stumbled upon the offer on LinkedIn.

<comment><USER2> Goodness I just saw your comment. I don't know how to upvote? Does this news list work like reddit?</comment></comment></comment>


Forecasting for Covid-19 has failed - <AUTHOR> https://forecasters.org/blog/2020/06/14/forecasting-for-covid-19-has-failed/ <comment><AUTHOR> The article's breakdown of cause effect and failure modes in modeling is applicable to other areas as well. IMHO, it's also a great discussion of failures in scientific research in general.</comment>


Atlassian refuses service because "unable to confirm restricted party" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/mukhmustafa/status/1102954823018795008 <comment><USER2> We apply a terrorist watch list to deny access to online project management software under the premise that international terrorists will use their real name to register for an online service?

This seems totally bonkers. If a terrorist organization wanted to use an online service to do project management and communication, would it not be in the best interest of intelligence agencies to encourage that kind of behavior? Particularly when Australia now legally requires backdoors.

I would have called "BS" if I had not seen the Atlassian reply.

How did Altassain gain access to this list? If they don't have "the list" how much does it cost per lookup? How do they disambiguate a (partial) match? Do they look up the identities of all prospective clients or only ones with names they think sound untrustworthy?

I work for a company that provides an online service related to higher education. We have international users and we don't have access to this list. Does anyone else work at a company that uses a terrorist watch list as part of user registration?

Apparently Atlassian feels free to talk about it so I gather there is no gag order in place.

<comment><USER3> "The list" is public, or more precisely there are several such lists published by different government agencies. A "list of lists" for the US is available at [https://www.state.gov/strategictrade/redflags/](https://www.state.gov/strategictrade/redflags/)

Most large companies use specialized screening services that aggregate all the relevant lists and provide help for disambiguation of common names.

<comment><USER2> Many thanks. I was not aware that such was publicly available.

Do you know if all online services (doing business in the U.S.) would hypothetically be required to verify registrations against this?

<comment><USER3> In general every business has to comply with sanctions and embargoes, but the law does not prescribe how they have to enact their compliance rules. Specific businesses (financial institutions, weapons manufacturers, uranium refiners, etc.) must have protocols to screen their clients, with requirements that vary by industry.

Disclaimer: IANAL, things vary by jurisdiction, and I am not from the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think Atlassian handled this okay by explaining themselves and requesting proof of identity. His name looks common enough that it is probably a case of mistaken identity.

The one thing they could have done better would be to provide a grace period, but I doubt that would be compliant with the law.</comment>


Essay Questions from China's "Brutally Long" College Entrance Exam - <AUTHOR> http://sun-zoo.com/chinageeks/2009/06/08/2009-gaokao-essay-questions/

<comment><USER2> Question 1 sort of feels like another essay question where the _good_ answer [to "which viewpoint is best"] is "it depends," but the "correct" answer is "let's see how well I can support one of these viewpoints by selectively ignoring scenarios when the others are more applicable." Which reminds me of the SAT. Seems like there's some consistency between standardized testing in the US and in China -- it's crappy everywhere (although certainly done with more style in China).

<comment><USER3> I get the sense that the "correct" answer is correct because it's state- sponsored.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I found Q2 section 3 about "An American peasant, so poor that he had no food to eat, was forced to go to odd jobs for a local rich person" somewhat funny/interesting. I would have like to see the questions associated with that prompt.

<comment><USER5> I think it was a passage in Chinese that needed to be translated into English.

<comment><USER6> It looks like this blogger was able to pass that part of the exam!

Kinda funny when you think about it: he actually _did_ the assignment while trying to figure out what the assignment was in the first place...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Math test (in Chinese) if anyone is interested

Version 1 for BS <http://edu.sina.com.cn/shiti/2009/0607/1750010465.html>

Version 1 for BA <http://edu.sina.com.cn/shiti/2009/0607/1930010486.html>

Version 2 for BS <http://edu.sina.com.cn/shiti/2009/0607/1958010489.html>

Version 2 for BA <http://edu.sina.com.cn/shiti/2009/0608/1416010515.html>

English test

Version 1 <http://edu.sina.com.cn/shiti/2009/0608/1916010543.html>

Version 2 <http://edu.sina.com.cn/shiti/2009/0609/0010010616.html>

See rest of the tests (History, Geograph, Chemistry, etc) here, all of them are in Chinese through. <http://edu.sina.com.cn/gaokao/2009gdgaokaoztjdp/index.html>

<comment><USER8> Are the math tests no calculator allowed?

<comment><USER7> yes, digital calculator is allowed

<comment><USER8> Basic scientific calculator or a full feature graphic calculator? At a glance, I think I would have been able to prepare just fine for that test as a high school senior with a scientific calculator (means it has +-/*, and log, sqrt sin cos etc.), but it would have been a breeze with a TI-89 (which symbolically solves equations and simplifies expressions). If graphing calculators are allowed that would give a very big advantage to the rich or anyone that knows what a big advantage such a calculator gives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me of the writing section of the SAT2/GRE. I'm more curious about what high scoring answers look like in relation to what a high scoring answer might look on the SAT2.

For example, does basing arguments around an obscure (but not pretentious) chinese proverb/idiom net you points in the same way you get bonus point for alluding to a literary classic here? Do long winded arguments ding you?

The other funny thing is that I hear lots of stories about how kids literally study themselves to death for these exams, yet writing an essay is an art that benefits from exactly the opposite: instead of studying hard, having lots of life experience outside the classroom almost always helps more.

</comment><comment><USER10> If it's long, but the questions are mundane and trivial, is it still brutal?

<comment><USER11> It's brutal because the pressure is amazingly intense. Your test results, quite literally, will determine the rest of your life.

College admission is _entirely_ based on your GaoKao score, grades don't matter and extracurriculars don't exist. Due to the Hukou system (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system>), your college attendance decides where you can live and where you can work in the future. For a peasant, a good GaoKao score is the only real way out of poverty.

To add to this, you don't get to pick your major in college. That's also decided by your GaoKao score, and your future career is decided by your major.

So, imagine if your whole life hinged on your SAT scores. Wouldn't that make the test a little more difficult?

<comment><USER10> I think it'd make the test just as easy, but more stressful. Since the questions are not difficult, I would worry that my answers are being interpreted as a test of what I think rather than how I think. Maybe this is just semantics, but I think difficulty of an exam is irrelevant of what it will be used for.

<comment><USER11> Actually, I think it's more than just semantics. Stress makes it harder in a quantifiable way. Stress impairs both memory and abstract reasoning. For the language composition portions it narrows your thinking, and strips out creativity.

Something fun like a pub quiz is measurably easier than something like the GaoKao, even if the questions are the same.

<comment><USER12> For the average person, stress seriously breaks down their ability to perform. However, there's a significant but smaller proportion of people who thrive on stress and these are the people you want at the top.

When something decides your entire life, the ones who excel at the task are going to be the ones who thrive on stress. In China this ability probably ends up putting you through the best schools in the country and either into the top ranks of corporations or into the government. Despite the system being unfair, it is probably an ideal way to select out those who are needed to manage and run a 1.3 billion person country.

Western countries either had higher education firmly established by the time the industrial and technological revolutions hit. Those that didn't, like the majority of North America, were able to grow slowly into the world with new technologies. However, China has essentially been shot from agricultural, through industrial and are now falling at terminal velocity through the technological era as they catch up with everyone else. The system in China seems amazingly stable, however the real question is what happens when they start getting bombarded by unions so big they can't quell.

<comment><USER11> You've got the general shape of it, but I've got one minor clarification about your history. You make the GaoKao sound recent, when it's basically the modern version of the Imperial Examination. The Imperial Examination started in 605, and ran continuously until the early twentieth century, so this is how China has been selecting their administrators for centuries.

We can debate the merits of Chinese higher education, but it's definitely not new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I thought the questions were fun, I would have enjoyed answering them.

<comment><USER14> Agreed, they seem more interesting than the kind of essay questions I got in school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is that story about John Dalton true? I know he is attributed with discovering color blindness as an illness and whatnot, but I can't find _any_ other reference about Dalton, color blindness, and christmas socks: <http://bit.ly/ySNwL>

<comment><USER16> I don't know if the story of Dalton is true or not. I don't think it matters for this test.

I think both Questions 1 and 2 are meant to respond to cultural value systems outside of China. I'm not sure about now, however, I can easily see a "Dalton" in China before 1990s accepting that the color of the socks are red, even though he sees it as grey and drop the matter.

Likewise, the story of the instant ramen noodles points out the persistence required for entreprenurialship, something that we take for granted reading Hacker News. On top of that, there is the political issue being that this is a story about Japan, something that is still emotionally charged (at least with my parent's generation). The story also presents the instant ramen inventor as being motivated by patriotism (or at least, humanitarian) rather than the profit motive. Finally, China has also seen several severe famines post WWII as a direct result of government policies (the government and the military has traditionally been responsible for making no one region becomes devestated by famine). The story presented an _individual_ rather than a state organization taking it upon himself to help solve the food problem. How does that square with the current policies of the Chinese government? Should non-University- elites be encouraged with this kind of initiative?

The story about the kerosene is weird to me. My first reaction is that it appears to be grafting the old Confucian values onto an American setting. We'd have to substitute "peasant" for something else -- "menial", "indentured servent", "slave", each carrying a very different baggage. (I doubt Chinese unversity candidates would be aware of the emotional charges these words bring). Going by my gut, I'm not sure any modern American would try to correct their mistakes by _demonstrating_ diligence (putting the wash out and carefully watching it). That kind of value system is more old-school Chinese, I think, that by demonstrating the proper diligence due to one's social superiors, Good Things Happen (the stain gets removed ... whether or not it is scientifically valided is not relavent in this story).

As for Question 1, I remember reading that story in an American self-help book. I have forgotten where it came from. It was a fable obviously demonstrated to encourage the development of strengths. It also fits in with the shift in American education towards building up self esteem (for example, see the work of Carol Dewek related to this topic). This is quite different from a cultural system where fathers would throw sons into a harsh environment just to the overcome weaknesses. The phrase, "eating bitter" (吃苦) is still in use today. I am sure many of the candidates writing this essay have memories of their parents pushing them academically, sending them through cram schools and hiring tutors if they could afford it. I'd say a good number of them would remember being the "rabbit" in one or more of the subject matters. The justification the parents (at least, my parents) tells the kid is, "you'll thank me later". So here is an essay question that gives you a chance to say, "yeah, the rabbit should be forced to swim for his own good; even I learned how to swim" or "no, I think this system is broken despite the fact that I am a product of this system".</comment></comment>


Save some time when "cd-ing" in terminal - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/philc/fuzzycd

<comment><AUTHOR> I find it quite convenient, because often I can just type part of the folder name that's easier / faster to type :)

What other useful productivity tools people use?</comment>


The Bitcoin Cash Fork Proves That Markets Aren't Rational - <AUTHOR> http://steviep.xyz/txt/bitcoin-cash <comment><USER2> As soon as the BCH blockchain actually starts moving, and exchanges start accepting deposits, the price will drop.

The current price on exchanges doesn't reflect the total supply of BCH because a huge majority of BCH is not able to be sold on exchanges.

Everyone who wants to buy BCH is able to do so, but almost nobody who wants to sell BCH is able to do so. Until that's resolved, supply and demand are out of whack. It's not that the markets aren't rational, it's that this market is heavily skewed.</comment>


Fair trial impossible in U.S., Snowden tells Ecuador - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 <comment><USER2> There's a lot of discussion here that is missing the point that is clearly expressed in the first paragraph of the article:

"Pleading for asylum from U.S. officials he says want to persecute him, NSA leaker Edward Snowden told Ecuadorian officials that he fears a life of inhumane treatment -- even death -- if he's returned the United States to answer espionage charges, the country's foreign minister said Monday."

Snowden isn't afraid of being found guilty and serving a reasonable sentence. He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon and tortured for decades. Which is a thing the USA has been proven to do. Recently. To people who have upset the government way, way less than he has.

It's a legit fear.

<comment><USER3>
      | He's afraid of disappearing into a secret dungeon
      | and tortured for decades.

Or spending decades in solitary confinement, which is akin to torture.

<comment><USER4>
        s/akin to//

It _is_ torture. Human beings are not meant to be deprived of interaction that much, and you can be sure he's not in solitary because he's a danger to other inmates.

<comment><USER3> I consider it to be torture, but a good portion of the population views torture as the stuff where someone's body is meticulously taken apart in the most painful way possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Snowden has nothing to worry about. He should come back home. Here:

 _Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process._

Barack H. Obama, The Obama-Biden Plan.

[http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/](http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/)

<comment><USER6> Worth remembering: The Whistleblower Protection Act covers Federal employees only, not private contractors. Moreover, efforts to expand the law to protect contractors as well have been repeatedly rebuffed in Congress.

<comment><USER7> That's misleading/false. The "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act" specifically protects intelligence contractors.

(Now I'll grant you that it probably isn't an attractive option for a lot of reasons, but there _is_ a way for people like him to blow the whistle on illegal government activity without going to jail.)

<comment><USER6> No @eli, you've just got your facts wrong. What you're referring to is not the same thing as the Whistleblower Protection Act. Critically, the Act to which you refer isn't concerned with protection at all. It simply designates the path that reports should follow in getting to Congress. Retaliation against those who use it goes unaddressed. Tellingly, the Act has not been used once since its passage.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act)

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistl...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistleblower_Protection_Act)

<comment><USER7> Huh? Which facts were wrong?

Yes, they're different laws. The WPA doesn't apply to DoD at all AFAIK, so the fact the point made above that contractors are exempt is irrelevant.

The law that covers the NSA is the ICWPA and it applies equally to contractors and employees.

As I said above, I agree it's not a real great law and I could understand not wanting to take advantage of it. But reporting things to the IG or Congress _is_ how you blow the whistle on classified intelligence programs. That's the process. I can't imagine it being a good idea to allow any low-level contractor to blow the cover of a classified program because they have decided it's wrong or unconstitutional.

<comment><USER6> You were wrong in saying I was making misleading and / or false statements about Snowden's lack of protection and you're wrong in your belief that the law you cited offers protection to whistleblowers.

The Whistleblower Protection Act - which is what I was originally talking about - has two seperate features. The first is to provide a well-defined pathway for reporting abuses to Congress. The second is to provide protection from retaliation against those who use this path.

The point I made is that this Act covers Federal employees only, and not private contractors.

What you referred to was a different law, written specifically for NatSec agencies. Like the Whistleblower Protection Act, it delineates a clear path for reporting abuse to Congress. And unlike the more general Act, it opens this path to private contractors as well as direct employees of the government. However—and this is critical—it does NOT provide the shield against retaliation that the Whistleblower Protection Act provides. In other words, if you're a private contractor (i.e. unprotected) and you use it to speak truth to power, you'd better be prepared to run.

So like I said, as a private security contractor, Snowden doesn't enjoy meaningful protections in the event that he blows a whistle. All he's got is a path for doing so that he may use at his own (very considerable) risk.

Again, as noted, not a single complaint has reached Congress via this channel. Not one. That should give you an idea as to how important the protections that Snowden doesn't enjoy really are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting how the US equates her own jurisdiction with 'the law.'

During the HK debacle they made this statement:

> If Hong Kong doesn't act soon, it will complicate our bilateral relations > and raise questions about Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law.

And again regarding Russia:

> I would urge them to live by the standards of the law because that is in the > interest of everybody.

Universal jurisdiction is a difficult policy to enforce since it can be challenged so plainly and directly by other state actors, especially if it's enforced selectively based on diplomatic convenience.

<comment><USER5> US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other place.

And yes indeed its irony how they believe the only law everyone needs to comply is the one they set up. And if they decide to use nuclear weapon of course it will be in accordance with rule of law and in "interest of everybody". Yuck. That abuse of basic words: everyone, everybody, everywhere. My parents gave me really good advice: do not ever listen or trust people who continuously abuse those words.

<comment><USER9> > US government is the most selfish country in the world. They sit on #2 oil > mine in the world (Alaska) but yet continue to suck it up from any other > place.

Isn't that just logical, however? Other countries could do the same, but they prefer to exchange their reserves for dollars. Once the other countries reserves start to run out, then the US will begin tapping theirs.

That's smart, from my point of view.

<comment><USER10> Is it really that smart ? By doing so the president commits crimes against humanity, incentives lots of people to attack the US, kills privacy for the sake of security and does so while violating the constitution. The list goes on and on. Meanwhile, the people (not the government !) end up paying for this madness. Literally and figuratively.

A smart thing to do would have been to fund programs that bring alternatives on the market. That may not even have been necessary. (high oil prices is a big enough incentive) If he had invested all that war money in alternatives, the world would love the US. But look at what's happening now ! The guy at the top is worse than Bush. He then bullies and threatens foreign countries in an attempt to shut down journalists. How smart is all that ?

The US could have innovated its way out of oil dependency problem. It choose not to. How smart is that ?

<comment><USER11> The U.S. doesn't get most of its oil from abroad though. We get most of it between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The idea that the U.S. is ravenously hounding Arab countries for their oil is pretty much just a leftist myth at this point.

Most Arab oil goes to China, India, Europe. Even the Arab oil that _does_ go to the U.S. is typically just to be refined and processed so it can turn right around and be _exported_ back to other countries.

<comment><USER12> > The U.S. doesn't get most of its oil from abroad though. We get most of it > between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

Canada and Mexico are part of "abroad", unless they've secretly been annexed when we were all distracted by Snowden.

Also, it doesn't get "most" from Canada and Mexico. More like a third of its imports.

> The idea that the U.S. is ravenously hounding Arab countries for their oil > is pretty much just a leftist myth at this point.

OPEC, as a large cartel that controls enough of the world supply to substantially influence market prices, is an important target for influence for any purchaser of oil whether or not they directly get oil from them. That said, the US gets lots of oil from OPEC, including its Arab members; Saudi Arabia, for instance, is the #2 source of imported US oil, and Iraq and Kuwait, and are significant sources as well -- and of the non-Arab OPEC members, Venezuela is #4, some months topping Mexico as #3, and Nigeria is significant as well.)

See: [http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_...](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm)

<comment><USER11> Canada and Mexico are encompassed by free trade agreements. I walked past a Canadian government poster right here in DC the other day gloating about being the #1 oil exporter to the U.S. I should hope that my overall point is not lost in the quibbling about whether invading Iraq for oil is the same as buying it from a willing seller next door.

As for OPEC, it is true that the U.S. imports a lot of oil... it is also true that it _exports_ a lot of refined petroleum products, as I had hinted at but didn't make fully clear. The actual U.S. usage for oil can be mostly made up by domestic (incl. regional) production, the excess refining capacity goes to support giving Europe and other nations high-quality gasoline and other products.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really wish I could sign the White House petition to pardon Snowden, but I don't want to get my name on the no-fly list or any other such secret lists of "terrorists".

I wonder how many Americans are afraid to speak out for the same reason. I guarantee every one of those 110,000 people who signed that petition are now being closely watched.

<comment><USER11> The NSA doesn't have enough analysts to "closely watch" anywhere close to that number though.

<comment><USER14> They don't need analysts to watch them. They just need to add their contact information to their 'watch more closely' list, and then run that through their data mining software. There's more than enough processing power to add a few hundred thousand more people to their 'intense scrutiny' list.

Not that I expect that it's actually going to happen, but it's not beyond the realm of their capability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When defendants can be over whelmed to the point of suicide, with many charges, knowing that a jury is likely to find guilt on at least one of them, and basically feel (s)he might as well plead guilty to get a lesser of two evils sentence, I'm not sure how any one thinks they can get a fair trial in the US, unless they have a huge amount of money to lose, let alone the likes of Snowden.

The idea of facing any sort of trial in a US court scares me senseless.

<comment><USER11> How does one get a fair trial in any nation with a free press and freedom of speech then?

If the jury has been tampered with, it has been by the incessant media coverage, which is permitted by the wide-ranging protections on the press, protections which Snowden is fighting for along with the rest of our Bill of Rights, no?

<comment><USER16> First of all, you need a _trial_. Go ask the people at Guantanamo.

Then it needs to be fair. Which means that both parties (the State and the individual, in this case) abide by the same laws. This is what is tricky, but in this case, Snowden could point out that (simplifying a lot):

* The law he is abiding by is the Constitution.

* The prosecutors will claim that he has broken other laws which have not been deemed unconstitutional.

* While those laws are reviewed (if they are, upon his appeal), he will not be treated justly (which to him probably seems quite likely).

<comment><USER17> _The law he is abiding by is the Constitution._

Where in the Constitution is the right to flee the United States with laptops full of classified information you illegally obtained?

Snowden has clearly committed serious crimes. It's fine to argue they were somehow for the greater good—though I'm not sure what "greater good" carelessly exposing classified information to the Russians and Chinese might be serving—but it seems like the government could present a slam dunk case against him while entirely respecting his rights.

<comment><USER16> Well, yes. You know: he could not do it from the US, so he decides to break a lesser important law for the greater good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I realize this may not be a popular opinion, but I think Snowden should turn himself in. There is a wider America then the one we get here on HN. The wider America is the same one which voted for Bush and don't own passports. To that America it is easy to see Snowden as a traitor and running to China and Russia isn't helping.

I realize that Manning has had it pretty rough while in custody, but: 1\. Snowden is a civilian. He has not submitted himself to military law. As far as I am aware, everything that has happened to Manning is (unfortunately) in line with military law. 2\. Manning leaked GBs of confidential documents seemingly at random. Snowden is pointing out a particular problem which he finds morally repulsive. These are two different issues.

In short, the more Snowden acts like a criminal, the more he will be perceived to be a criminal. Monitoring citizens is one thing. The failure of the criminal justice system / law and order is another. Furthermore, it is difficult to support him when he is in hiding.

Snowden is acting like he did something wrong. He should own it.

<comment><USER6> Manning isn't the only example of vindictive prosecutors run amok. Aaron Swartz was facing a deck stacked so heavily that he was risking 35 years in prison for excercising his basic right to a trial by jury. And if you doubt that the same psychotic vindictivness would be in play here, consider the case of Thomas Drake.

Indeed, Drake's case is the essential precursor to understanding Snowdwn's, in that it was the one that unambiguously revealed (a) how out of bounds the NSA had grown and (b) how effectively the whistleblower system had been transformed into a means of ferreting out principled opponents with the law on their side.

Snowden had no illusions about getting a fair trial. He's running from a kangaroo court, not impartial justice. And if you think his "legitimacy" as a "conscientious objector" has any bearing whatsoever, then the thrust of the entire revelation has been lost on you. This isn't some theatrical act of protest. This is hard evidence of a massive criminal conspiracy conducted by the US military against the American people. And the power to which he's speaking truth isn't them, it's us. Some can handle it, and respond judiciously. Others freak out, and retreat to blanket denials. Insisting that Snowden stand trial on dubious charges in a court rigged against him is probably the worst imaginable response to the confirmation he's risked his life to deliver.

<comment><USER19> Manning is in the military, so his case exists in a totally different legal system (which I personally don't think is a good idea, ie: separate system for military justice).

Revealing the spying system gathering US Citizen data is probably the whistleblower part that might be protected. I don't think that the surveillance of foreign citizens at universities in HK or wherever is going to get protected, and revealing that type of stuff is going to be prosecuted.

Your viewpoint on spying may be that it isn't right, however, I believe the only legal defense for Snowden is in the US Constitution, and it grants no rights to foreigners, as far as I recall.

I find it unfortunate at this point that the main story is starting to revolve around Snowden and his attempts at finding sanctuary instead of whether or not what he revealed is important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I suspect that a trial that would result in Snowden being found not guilty is nearly impossible--given anything like competence in the prosecution team. But is a fair trial supposed to be like a fair coin, with an even chance either way?

Note that I am not saying anything with regard to rights and wrongs, merely about laws.

[Edit: changed "found guilty" to "found not guilty". Thanks.]

<comment><USER21> I suspect you meant "being found not guilty is nearly impossible". And federal prosecution is absolutely nothing like a fair coin toss -- the federal conviction rate is 90+%.

I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases -- throwing an array of charges and seizing assets, for example. Also, the idea of jury nullification (the idea that jurors can find someone 'not guilty' of an unjust law) cannot be broached by the defense.

<comment><USER22> > I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases

Yes, and that tactic is not wasting resources bringing a case unless it's a slam-dunk. Say what you want about the Schwartz prosecution, but it was a slam-dunk case. The debate was political: whether his actions merited such harsh punishment, not legal: it was clear and undisputed that he entered the closet, downloaded the articles, changed his MAC address to evade the ban, etc, and those actions were almost certainly crimes within the letter of the law.

A system where a trials didn't result in a high conviction rate would be supremely broken. It would mean that prosecutors were bringing cases without enough evidence to make them a likely win.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's a thorny issue. On the one hand, Snowden clearly committed treason in revealing a part of the national security architecture. So even in a fair trial, even counting how overdue the discussion about constitutional compatibility was, he can't expect to get free.

But he is right. While the US have a much fairer process of trial than most other countries, the system has been bitch-slapped left and right over Guantanamo and Wikileaks.

What is worse: The US justice system's failures are minutely documented, while China and Russia do these kind of trials routinely, and noone really bothers.

<comment><USER24> I agree with you except maybe on the word "treason". I'm not so sure that revealing state secrets is treason. A crime, certainly, but not treason. I thought treason was siding with some other entity over the interests of the state. So, for instance, if Snowden took state secrets and sold them to China, _that_ might be treason.

<comment><USER11> Well in layman terms treason is anything that deliberately weakens your state in favor of those of your enemies. Pointing out specifics of U.S. cyberattacks on Chinese infrastructure might actually be one example.

But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not fall under.

<comment><USER25> > But then there is also a Constitutional definition that Snowden would not > fall under.

That's the only definition that matters. "Weakens the state" could apply to someone who complains about their taxes on Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I sincerely hope that Ecuador denies his request and he is deported back to the United States. In his Q&A, Snowden said the United States was worth dying for. If he truly wants things changed, he certainly won't achieve it hiding in Ecuador. He has the opportunity to present his case to the citizens of the United States through the proper avenues: our justice system, our legislature (through Congressional hearings), and our press.

To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the United States is completely ridiculous. What he's really trying to say is he knows he is guilty.

Could you imagine if Daniel Ellsberg had fled to a foreign country and sought asylum there? The entire premise of a whistleblower would probably not exist if he had done that.

<comment><USER3>
      | To allege he won't receive a fair trial in the
      | United States is completely ridiculous

Would you, as a whistleblower, trust your former employer, on whom you blew the whistle, to be your judge, jury and executioner? I'm thinking not.

<comment><USER11> Snowden himself is saying that the judiciary should have oversight of any NSA surveillance programs via specific warrants (among other things), was he not? Does he believe in Constitutional protections or no?

Similarly I wasn't aware that judges and defense attorneys allowed the prosecutor to pack juries with NSA analysts. Has this changed at some point?

<comment><USER6> Why do you think the charges were filed in Eastern Virginia (home of the security establishment) and not Hawaii, whi h is the home of Snowden and the scene of the alleged crime?

<comment><USER11> Are you saying no one in all of eastern Virginia is able to get a fair trial? If true that would be a far worse crisis for civil liberties than an automated FISA-compliance system.

<comment><USER6> No, of course I'm not. Moreover, reframing the dynamic that exists between a particular plaintiff and a particular defendant in a particular case by turning it into a blanket assumption as general as that is either stupid, dishonest, or both. Seriously, why would I do that? More pointedly, what makes you even raise the question?

Jurisdiction shopping is a very real problem, as HN readers who follow patent issues know all too well. Anyone insisting that Snowden's trial would be fair should pay more attention to the way the field is being tilted against him from the outset.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's Special About This Number? - <AUTHOR> http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/numbers.html

<comment><USER3> 226 must not be special because it is the smallest number not on the list. I've always thought 226 was useless.

<comment><USER4> So there's no uninteresting natural number. Because if there were some - <USER2> had to be a smallest uninteresting one. And cleary that would be an interesting property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 2 - the number of hands someone has too much time on</comment>


Recruit this - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samuellevy.com/post/44-recruit-this.html

<comment><USER2> I have a prominent link at the top of CV/Resume/linkedin to my "Note to recruiters" which helps with all this - <http://www.rogerbinns.com/recruiters.html>

For example it says to name the company (and why) and that if the recruiter has trust issues with their client that I don't want to get involved. It becomes _very_ obvious which recruiters have actually read the note to make sure the company and I are possibly matched, versus those that are indistinguishable from spammers.

Several years ago I was interviewing somewhere and Googled the job blurb. There were over 100 recruiters who had copied the job details from the company website and pretended it was their own client. (I checked with the company - they had in house recruiters and did not accept external ones - all those external ones were charlatans.)

Thankfully there are some good recruiters out there, but sadly they are seriously outnumbered.

<comment><USER3> > Several years ago I was interviewing somewhere and Googled the job blurb. > There were over 100 recruiters who had copied the job details from the > company website and pretended it was their own client. (I checked with the > company - they had in house recruiters and did not accept external ones - > all those external ones were charlatans.)

I use LinkedIn, and have a personal website with my CV on it, and I experience this almost daily.

Recently, I've started keeping a list of all the recruiters that spam me or try to get in contact with me. I know quite a few of the companies in my area that are hiring so I usually run these names past people that work there and more often than not these recruiters will just scrape sites like Stack Overflow Careers to find companies that are hiring, only to sell people already on their books.

The worst I've experienced is when one of the large agencies in Bristol were hiring. My company received a phone call from a hurried man saying "Something is wrong, I need to speak to EnderMB". The second I picked up the phone, fearing the worst, this guy told me he was a recruiter and asked if I was happy at my job. After some harsh words he hung up, and then sent me a message on LinkedIn asking me to recommend other developers to him. Half an hour later, the phone rung again with someone saying that they needed to speak to someone else at the company. The boss gave the phone over, and it was the same guy again, doing the same thing to everyone in the company on my LinkedIn friends list. I checked with the hiring company and they'd blacklisted this guy and his company before, but they had tried to sell developers to him under another holding company.

Recruitment is entirely out of hand now. The only recruiters I've ever wanted to deal with are internal recruiters who seem to actually give a shit about getting good talent to their company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Three rules for dealing with recruiters.

Don't let them near your cell phone number. Keep it off your profile. Put a Google Voice number in there instead. It's like Craigslist, there are advantages to using them, but you need to wear your big boy pants and take some simple steps to protect your privacy.

Recruiters are not technical and never will be. "I think I'll quit programming and start recruiting" -- No one, ever. Do not expect them to know anything about the jobs they're pitching. They're sales types, skilled at making connections with people, not machines. Try to appreciate that instead of demanding they learn two difficult skill-sets just for a fairly-poorly compensated job.

Keep each email to a single question until you've established that the opportunity is worth pursuing. Don't let them set the direction of the discussion until then. In the situation described, I would have simply asked, over and over again, "What is the salary range offered?" until they coughed up a number.

A recruiter found me my current job. I might be here a month until another recruiter will find me another making more money.

<comment><USER5> Technical recruiters are hardly poorly compensated. They rarely work more than 40 hours a week and any recruiter worth a crap will be making and sustaining 6 figures within 3 years.

<comment><USER6> Not sure what the situation is in the US but I have yet to meet a single successful recruiter in the UK that works less than a 60 hour week. Recruiter hours on this side of the world are quite notorious.

<comment><USER5> I worked a split desk for a year during the tech bust and made ~50K in 8 months, and I wasn't particularly motivated at that job... several co-workers who started the same time that I did outperformed me by as much as 40K. For most of those guys today, a bad year is below the $150K range. Mind you, this is in Dallas, not San Francisco. Some of them migrated to another company which does permanent and contract placement and most of the ones who made the switch are pulling in 200K+.

From what I gather, the UK and EU don't value software developers as much, so the bill rates are probably lower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well I was with him up until:

       Three days later (on a Monday), she calls me, and tells me
       that she has organised an interview for me for Tuesday afternoon.

       What?  I went to the interview [...]

Why would you go on an interview under these circumstances? You're just giving positive reinforcement to their bad behavior.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. I went to the interview to see if I could salvage some work out of it (I'm a contractor, and quite often a skilled contractor would suit better than another full-time employee). The person I interviewed with (he was tech lead in the company) was actually quite happy with the idea, but he couldn't get it past HR.

<comment><USER8> Actually by going to the interview you probably ended any chance of freelancing for them for the next 6-12 months. A standard arrangement is that they would've had to pay the recruiter a 25% annual salary equivalent in fees if there's a hire once the introduction has been made. How do you think recruiters make their money? Irrespective of any other reason given, it's no surprise HR said no.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Recruiters, especially those who work for third-party recruiting firms, are sales people. They have a series of incentives that only loosely align with "find good candidates" and almost never align with "don't piss off said candidates." There are some very good recruiters out there, most seem to be employed directly by the company they're recruiting for, but the rest of the lot might as well be in low-end used car sales.

If they set up an interview that you didn't request, that you don't want, and you go to it - you're the one to blame. Chances are you contributed to part of their incentive pay by participating in that interview. Further, they're not 'taking "no" for an answer' because you're not telling them "no."

<comment><USER10> Yeah, the incentives are really screwed up.

Firms like Riviera Partners in SanFran have different tiers of clients. Some pay 33% on base salary, others 25%... guess what interviews you'll be pushed into first?

If you pass, you probably won't even hear about the job openings at the companies that are "only" paying 25% commissions, even if it's potentially a better fit for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I get tired of them never disclosing the client. If they're soliciting me while I'm currently at a position that they can only assume I'm happy with, they need to present a pretty damn good case to get me out it; ambiguity just won't cut it.

<comment><USER10> Half the time there is no client... They are just luring you in, and once they have your resume, it gets spammed out to as many employers as the have in their address book. Your resume gets used as "bait" in order for them to find new clients.

Even at DeveloperAuction we get clueless recruiters pitching us Java Engineers in NYC (We're rails in SF) and sending us "blinded" resumes with personally identifiable contact details removed. It's craziness!

<comment><USER11> That's my biggest concern. The other is, often I find their claims to be mis- repesented. "We have a large media client downtown" really meant "a company of 20 people, and 3 developers". If they had told me the name, I would have seen right through the BS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've had to login to my phone provider's website and block numbers on two separate occasions. If I don't pick up after calls/voicemails every day for a week straight and you continue to call, you are doing your job wrong.

</comment><comment><USER13> I imagine there are recruiters for every type of profession (I know for sure that "executive" recruiters exist). The question is, is it this bad in those other industries? Is IT particularly bad because it's intangible and an 'average person' doesn't know the first thing about the inside of a computer vs the inside of a car?

</comment><comment><USER14> The correct way to deal with recruiters, especially if you're currently doing freelance work: find the name of the company, insist that you're not interested in the role, then contact the company directly.

Also, don't call it freelancing, call it consulting, and charge more.

</comment><comment><USER15> The upside of Silicon Valley is 99% of the time, they disclose the client on first contact.

<comment><USER16> and thats because the scene @ SV is more evolved. They understand that they have little, if any, chance of converting from a normal to hot lead, without disclosing the name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The latest: a recruiter submitted my resume to D.E. Shaw without asking. The recruiter calls, I tell them I'm grieving a loss in my family and at the same time I'm on a death march--can we discuss this later. I then receive an email informing me that my resume has been submitted. I made the mistake of picking up the phone when they call to hector me about submitting to the recruitment process. I'm afraid they left the company with the impression that I was initially interested, but changed my mind.

In some cases they can be aggressive and schedule interviews, or act as if we had spoken previously and that my memory was defective. I don't tolerate gaslighting and tell them. I never hear from them again.

</comment><comment><USER18> Great Point... I deal with recruiters all the time that just don't get the point but every once in a while you encounter a good one here and there.</comment>


What are some good magazines to subscribe to? - <AUTHOR>

I'm planning to defer college for a couple of years to work on building a startup. What are some magazines that I should subscribe to in the interim to just stay informed and keep on learning new things?<p>I'm definitely looking for a business/startup magazine to subscribe to, a tech and/or science magazine, and just a general magazine. <comment><USER2> For a general magazine, I cannot recommend the New Yorker highly enough. By far some of the best writing in the field.

</comment><comment><USER3> I get a bunch, the ones that I happen to read cover-to-cover

1) Inc.

2) Wired

3) The Atlantic

4) Fast Company</comment>


A notes taking application using React-Native, Redux and Async-Storage-Engine - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/shoumma/Asprov-Notes <comment><AUTHOR> This is my first application using this platform. I'm very excited about it. Would love any suggestions and feedback.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you track competitor's website? - <AUTHOR> Like being notified every time HTML/CSS/JS changes <comment><USER2> Depends on how much time you want to spend behind that. The depth of information's you want to have, can be achieved via data scraping techniques but does it worth it? Question yourself.</comment>


Ask HN: Delaware LLC, Residing in New York? - <AUTHOR> I have a solo web project which has started generating some income. I'd like to form an LLC at this point, as I plan on continuing to bootstrap and grow it. I'm in the process of relocating to NYC, so I'm not fully aware of the tax implications. Will I have to register the business as a foreign / out of state business in NY as well?
I'm usually working from cafe's/home/co-working spaces on this, and sell no physical products.
Any guidance / insight is appreciated! <comment><USER2> IANAL. But I have done this a number of times, though not specifically in NYC.

Yes, you will need to register as a foreign LLC in your home state if you transact business from that state. Each state has specific rules on what "transacting business" means, but generally if you work from that state or have a bank account that you routinely access or have mail delivered there you will be required to register there. My state has some ways around it but almost every CPA/Tax person I have talked to always suggests the foreign registration even when it may not be 100% required just because of the potential for liabilities adding up. So you will owe NYC LLC taxes in addition to normal Federal taxes and Delaware annual LLC fees.

My 2 cents, there is no reason to register in Delaware as an LLC and then register in your home state. Just register in your home state and save yourself some money and headaches. While there are some advantages of a Delaware LLC, there is also a number of extra fees, steps and caveats. So unless you have a reason to need those specific benefits and are willing to pay advisors to make sure you don't have (or accidentally create) issues it is easier and less complicated to just start with your home state.

One advantage of a Delaware LLC people often cite is the personal liability protection which is better than many other states, however, since your primary business is in NYC and operating under the laws of NYC it becomes a little more complex than that simple statement.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that makes sense. You're right, it will be simpler to just register in NYC.</comment></comment>