Why Nonstop Travel in Personal Pods Has yet to Take Off - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/440859459/why-nonstop-travel-in-personal-pods-has-yet-to-take-off <comment><USER2> Having taken MUNI (SF's light rail) underground in SF, I have some doubt about the efficiency of such a system. In my station (Church), in the morning, I can see trains coming in every 3-4 minutes or so; and about 40 people get on at once. With a PRT system, you'd have to first line up at the turnstile to punch in your destination. Assume 15 seconds each. Then, when a car comes in, you'd have line up to get in. A person gets in, swipes her card, punches in the destination, etc. Minimum time: 1 minute, _if_ you're being fast. Suddenly, the bandwidth is just not there; the platform becomes the bottleneck. Same would happen at an elevated pathway too, I imagine.

So, a system like this would be infeasible in a dense city like SF. Above ground is another story altogether: the NIMBYs would block all construction.

What _could_ work is a system of autonomous vehicles (taxis) the size of a Google self-driving car, running above ground, summoned via a smartphone app or a kiosk at every corner. So, instead of dedicated pathways and elevated tracks, use autonomous cars.

Also: very importantly, each car _must_ have odor detectors / biohazard detectors in case someone has an 'accident' in the car.

<comment><USER3> All excellent points. This is why we should invest more heavily in proven mass transit systems rather than divert limited public funds into these inefficient pods or hyperloop systems.

Corollary: Is it really that bad to have to ride a bus or train with other people on-board?

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Busses are the least-worst alternative to walking. People are noisy, they smell, they crowd you when you're holding groceries, they make a trip with friends or God forbid a date unpleasant, they're late when you're early and early when you're late, and chances are you'll still have to walk a few blocks to get where you want to go.

Obviously not every case, but I've taken a fair amount of Bay Area busses in my time and there was always at least one of the above complaints.

<comment><USER3> Agreed that it's not as pleasant as having a car to yourself (I ride the NYC buses and subways everyday), but I think we could solve a lot of the people issues with proper policing rather than outright isolation.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Chances are if you make more "quality of life" laws you'll either have some schmuck causing trouble when enforcement is nowhere to be found, or they'll be used as excuses for cops to pad their stats by arresting first and asking questions later, with most of the punishment hitting minorities, as tends to happen in the U.S.

The problem is cultural. Another poster here mentioned Japan, where busses are pleasant. After all, that is a place where "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down." If we really want public life on par with Japan or Europe, change has to start with each and every one of us. No government program or well-funded startup could ever do it alone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Here in Ithaca, NY, we have three major communities that are relatively close, but _just_ too far away from a combination of distance, elevation from hills, and miserably cold temperatures: downtown, Ithaca College, and (Cornell's) collegetown. A simple pod connection between collegetown and downtown, and then another route to IC, would do wonders for our transit system.

See, the nice and terrible thing about Ithaca is that it's a small valley hemmed in by hills on three sites and a lake to the north, so most things tend to be bunched together, which can be almost walkable, depending on distance, temperature, and whether you're carrying groceries. The downside is that there are like 5 arterial roads to get anywhere meaningful in the area, and if just one of them is closed for construction, traffic slows to a halt.

We don't need long or complex routes. I've been on the WVU pods, and while they're nice, they go FAR. I'm talking about a quarter or less of the distance they cover, and only in two directions (and maybe a third because you have a better chance of getting into Willy Wonka's chocolate factory than finding parking at the farmers market). So please, by all means, if you're looking to trial travel pods somewhere, start here.

<comment><USER4> That's a good application for Intamin's Mountain People Mover.[1] Intamin builds both roller coasters and monorails, and for a ski resort, they combined the technologies. It's a personal rapid transit system which runs on roller coaster track. Steep hills are not a problem. Nor is snow.

[1] [http://www.intaminworldwide.com/transportation/MountainPeopl...](http://www.intaminworldwide.com/transportation/MountainPeopleMover/tabid/119/language/de- DE/Default.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> They might want to try these approach:

1\. They should convince company with $$$ such as Google, FB, Apple to build this for building between their campus buildings.

       Those company has $ and regulation issues might be might a lot smaller compare to convincing a city like SF to do it.

       Might be easier to sell because of the "cool factor".

       Those companies can easily convince City of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino to let them do it.

2\. If #1 works, those companies can build routes between the public transit hub, large shopping malls to company. Help ease the parking/commute issues.

3\. Convince Disney Land, World to do this for the "cool factor".

4\. All Major convention centers, sport stadium to build routes to major shopping mall/large parking structures nearby.

<comment><USER6> Disneyland had one and they ripped it out 20 years ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeopleMover](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeopleMover)

Of course, it was just a "ride" and only covered Tomorrowland. I've always thought they made a mistake not covering the whole park with one of these.

<comment><USER7> > I've always thought they made a mistake not covering the whole park with one > of these.

Appropriately enough given the topic at hand, they have a train for that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_Railroad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_Railroad)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been thinking about this a lot and think there's a few things to think about.

First, the reason we haven't seen these is because until very recently the tech needed to make them cheap wasn't there.

Second, the technology seems to be caught a classic "worse is better" situation. The actual PRT tech is clearly superior to buses and LRTs, but those are well understood and there's a simple evolutionary path (car, bus, bus lane, lrt, lrt lane, subway). PRTs require a leap of thinking from people and governments don't have any incentives or mandate to take such risks.

Third, PRTs tracks may be hard to connect to a true network where pods seamlessly switch between tracks.

Finally, the self driving car could very well kill this in its tracks, but no form of transport can deliver speed or consistency without a dedicated right of way, be that suspended track, tunnel, marked lane etc.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Self-driving cars will likely kill PRT ambitions by being a better band-aid for long enough to not have to think about the problem for a while, like how successive attempts at solar power were buried for more than 100 years by more efficient coal extraction, then oil, then nuclear, then oil, again.

<comment><USER9> Self-driving cars aren't a band-aid. In the long term, where every vehicle on the road is self-driving, then they're the best solution possible (for any travel distance that doesn't warrant something like Hyperloop / planes / trains). I say this because self-driving cars can go everywhere (that cars can go). Pods have a fixed track, they can only go where there's track to go. The only way for Pods to be better than self-driving cars is if we rip up all the roads and replace the entire road network with a pod track network, but that obviously will never happen (and even then it's not necessarily better, because a pod track network could only be used for pods, but roads can be used by a lot more than just cars).

<comment><USER10> Self-driving cars would still be less workable than rail when there's a certain level of density. I can't see New Yorkers all loading up in self driving cars; they just don't scale as well as trains do. Even assuming quadruple capacity from the roads, you would still need a large number of fairly beefy bridges and tunnels to get everyone coming from outside of Manhattan into Manhattan.

<comment><USER11> In what way do they not scale as well as trains do? I think self driving cars will probably introduce a huge pile of problems, but that particular claim seems odd to me.

<comment><USER10> It comes down to space. Cars occupy way more space per passenger than trains do. A fully loaded subway train can easily carry almost thousand people. The 7000 series in the DC Metro carries ~175 people per car maximum, and the trains are 8 cars long, for 1400 people per train. Normally, 26 trains per hour are scheduled during rush hour, allowing up to 36,000 people per hour if all trains were 8 cars long (they currently aren't due to power constraints). Other systems that have longer trains, better headways, and better seat configurations have way higher capacities. New York for instance could achieve much greater capacity given its longer trains and a modern signalling system.

By contrast, a road lane (which uses the same space) currently typically carries around 1000-2000 cars per hour. In ideal circumstances it can be almost 5000 cars per hour. Even assuming quadruple capacity from self driving cars (not realistic), 20,000 cars per hour in ideal circumstances would compete with trains at a far higher environmental cost.

But in more realistic scenarios with quadruple capacity, 4000-8000 cars per hour would fall way short of a train. Given that we have to account for pedestrians, cyclists, etc., I can easily see traffic lights continuing to exist, making self driving cars not achieve the miracles people expect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's just too far ahead of its time. You need to be able to do this without building special infrastructure for the pods, which is an enormous risky up- front investment for something that is, frankly, almost certain to fail. Times will change and the infrastructure can't change with it. And you can't roll the system out a little bit and get a little bit of the benefits; it's useless until you fully cover a significant set of use cases.

By contrast, if the pods were self-driving cars on the roads that already exist, the economics change completely. No special infrastructure. Can easily roll out on a small scale for small benefits. Can easily ramp up. Massively smaller initial outlay. System can grow and pay for itself as it goes.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash The problem with self-driving cars as a cure-all is the Jevon's Paradox: if the costs of auto transport are knocked down, then everyone will use them at the slightest whim, especially when tired or drunk. People can live 2+ hours away from work and it won't be a problem when they can work or sleep in their car.

I'm not saying this will happen but I do fear that mobile homes will make a comeback as people live permanently on the road in cars they don't have to drive or pay property taxes for, all while taking up 2-3x the space of a regular car.

<comment><USER12> In terms of getting a system like this set up, you seem to be complaining that it might succeed too much. Perhaps so, but that's a problem the inventor here would prefer to have rather than the one he has now.

Also, if that did happen, the RV might take up 2-3x the space of a car _while moving_ , but then they end up not taking up the space of a _house_ while stationary, which they usually are, so, you know, probably a net win for density. On the off chance this took off bigtime the economy would further adjust (rentable spots, etc.).

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Let's put it this way: we had te technology for basic solar energy in the 19th century. If we had forbidden fossil fuels and exclusively used solar and other renewables like hydro, we would have taken a much longer time to get where we are today, but the environment would have benefited and we wouldn't be in such trouble with climate change. The path we choose is just that: a choice. And cheap choices are easier.

I'm all for innovation, but one of the most laughable human qualities is the idea that there will ever be a solution to a problem that makes the problem go away. Ex: We may have eliminated smallpox but if it ever came back we'd be in serious trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This type of system would seem to have the same failure modes that complex baggage handling systems have. [1]

They are both moving baggage (passengers) on demand between two points. I seem to remember seeing an article indicating that the failures Denver was having (all the empty pods end up at one spot) was visible in experiment, but I can't find it now.

[1] [http://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/DIABaggage.pdf](http://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/DIABaggage.pdf) [2] [http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs- wm/630.pdf](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/630.pdf)

<comment><USER13> Found the article discussing a simulation:

[http://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/science/rpn/biblio/ddj/Web...](http://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/science/rpn/biblio/ddj/Website/articles/DDJ/1997/9701/9701h/9701h.htm#rf1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> London Heathrow Airport has Travel Pods like that: [https://youtu.be/F5Knmgr2Ge8](https://youtu.be/F5Knmgr2Ge8)

Wikipedia article lists five operational systems like this in the world: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit#List_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit#List_of_operational_ATN_systems)

<comment><USER15> Wow that's really cool. Now if they can just remove the silly cars and let me ride my bike on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm surprised ULTra wasn't mentioned:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra_(rapid_transit)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra_\(rapid_transit\))

</comment><comment><USER17> What I sometimes wonder about is whether or not we'll some day seen these kind of personal pods configured for use on existing railway stock. Many times while waiting for a train, I've sat there pondering - "what if I could build some sort of portable segway-like thing that I could just clamp onto one of those rails on the track, step onto it, and propel myself down the line" .. and I honestly can't think of any major reasons why this wouldn't be viable in this day and age. Pods could clamp onto the existing rail, shuttle individuals around, communicate with each other to avoid collisions, and so on .. maybe I'm just not thinking it through well enough, but couldn't we just build better rail-transport devices at the personal level which utilize the existing infrastructure, instead of having to rebuild it all from scratch with incompatible systems?

Something like this, only better:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YVVSzS3Fco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YVVSzS3Fco)

<comment><USER18> +1. Having something that can use the existing rail infrastructure in off periods would be great as a transitional adoption method. That way you have time to address the institutional jitters while still providing/proving real service.

For example, during weekends / night when the load is much lower (or service doesn't run anyway).

<comment><USER17> There is a lot of 'dead rail' out there that might be repurposed for this ..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This sort of thing was tried and apparent failed in the planned "ecotopia" of Masdar City.

 _" The initial design banned automobiles, as travel will be accomplished via public mass transit and personal rapid transit (PRT) systems, with existing road and railways connecting to other locations outside the city..."_

But _" Under a revised design, public transport within the city will rely on methods other than the PRTs."_

Reference: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City#Transport_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City#Transport_system)

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't think you can argue that self-driving cars killed PRT, when we are still building brand new subways and light rail.

I think anything new/innovative loses in the sound byte war. I remember ~2 years ago, the election for mayor of Honolulu hinged on the candidates' stances on building a railroad vs. expanding the existing bus system (rail won). I think if either of them were arguing for PRT, you couldn't explain it to voters in the sound bytes summaries the news gives us.

</comment><comment><USER21> Didn't Aaron Patzer explain this, back when he concluded that Swift PRT wouldn't work?

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140723180502/http://swiftprt.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140723180502/http://swiftprt.com/blog/2011/12/the- future-of-ground-based-transportation-systems/)

</comment><comment><USER18> This has a great (and updated) set of links for all PRT efforts [http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm](http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm)

</comment><comment><USER22> I would think tracked PRTs would need less road space than driven cars. In medium density cities roads are a quarter of square footage. You could probably take out 1/2 or 2/3rds existing roads then and convert them to yards or parks.

<comment><USER14> I am afraid PRTs would have hard time competing with roads, and even more so with railways, in terms of passenger carrying capacity.

Wikipedia says [1] high capacity road can carry 2,400 passengers per hour; light rail 20,000 - 25,000 passengers per hour per lane in each direction.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Comparison_with_hig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Comparison_with_high_capacity_roads)</comment></comment>


A day on Hacker News: 25K Visitors, 10K Android Emulator Launches, 1K Accounts - <AUTHOR> http://www.manymo.com/blog/2012/10/16/24-hours-on-hacker-news/

<comment><USER2> Would love to know how many times of those attempted emulator launches didn't actually fail ;) I tried to use your site repeatedly but it failed each time.

<comment><USER3> Came here to say this. Haven't been back to try it yet either. Hopefully this postmortem post gets some of those folks to remember the service, try again, and have it work.

UPDATE: I was able to successfully run the emulator without a problem today. It's very impressive IMO and can see why they received so many sign-ups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was able to launch an actual instance today. It's basically a VNC in my browser. Of course you need some kind of streaming for the graphics content. But why do you have to stream the control button sets, too?! My browser is very capable of displaying buttons. It just gives a very terrible feeling if you have the buttons slooowly change their background as you hover over them.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you struggled to use Manymo or are otherwise not keen to sign up but are still interested, check out this video I found on YouTube: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TXiDPlc3Fg> .. basically a live 5 minute presentation/tour of how it works.

</comment><comment><USER6> When my website hit the front page, I got around 60k visits. I was getting about 2k regularly before then.

Short blog post about it: [http://noexcuselist.com/blog/effects-of-hackernews- and-futur...](http://noexcuselist.com/blog/effects-of-hackernews-and-future- plans/)

</comment><comment><USER7> The instances i launched were terribly slow. I'm from Chile, southamerica so maybe only US/European/Japan users are able to run the emulator smoothly.

It's a great idea and definitively a service i would pay for. I wish performance were better.

</comment><comment><USER8> that sounds about right. I had an article that made it to the front page of HN about a month ago, and it was 25k hits and about 5% of what I'd call real visits, ie people who stayed long enough to read the piece.</comment>


How to exit vim in 5 simple steps - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/help-i-was-using-git-to-commit-some-code-and-now-the-window-has-changed-and-i-dont-know-what-s-9348a27e145b <comment><USER2> Or, after you hit escape and enter command line mode, you may choose to type q immediately followed by !.

This sequence will quit while also overriding the saving of the file. This can come in handy if you accidentally change a file after you start editing it.

Escape:q!</comment>


China Is Treating Islam Like a Mental Illness - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/china-pathologizing-uighur-muslims-mental-illness/568525/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I vaguely remember that Soviet Union had a tendency of sending some political opponents in psychiatric wards to be treated as mentally ill.

Does anyone know if there have been studies or reports that indicate whether this sort of technique works in the long run? In addition to it being inhumane, I can see it going two completely different ways: either getting rid of political opponents/Muslims/... or fostering revolution/martyrdom.

</comment><comment><USER3> You should understand that communism is and very likely will always be the ONLY religion allowed in the People's Republic of China.

<comment> ur-whale I guess it's a matter of picking your poison

<comment><USER3> In this case, you don't get to pick, the party picks it for you.

<comment> ur-whale The party, your parents, the culture you grew up in ...

Does it make that big of a difference in the end?

In all cases, someone else picks how to best indoctrinate you.

<comment><USER4> If you can change your beliefs without being incarcerated for that, it's a BIG difference. My parents and culture where I've grown up are highly catholic, yet I'm not being persecuted for being atheist.

<comment><USER5> However many cultures do/did do exactly that. Is it still better than the state prescribing it? Probably.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How I Interview - <AUTHOR> http://rkoutnik.com/articles/How-I-Interview.html <comment><USER2> I have decided that I will no longer take technical interviews.

I have 25 years of software development under my belt, I published a book, spoke at various conferences in Europe, have a Github profile (admittedly not very lively), worked for well-established enterprises and have great references. Why shall I still prove myself?

If I was a senior lawyer or an architect joining a new studio, I strongly doubt I would have to go through an interview to test if I can use the drawing table or if I know the body of laws of my countries. It is just ridiculous.

As I work as a freelance, my approach will be to offer 2 weeks of work on site for free. After the 2nd week, if they still think I'm good enough for the company, I will charge the 2 weeks, otherwise goodbye and no questions asked.

<comment><USER3> > _Why shall I still prove myself?_

Because we see candidates claiming that level of experience that cannot construct a simple for loop.

<comment><USER2> Well claiming is a very far galaxy from "demonstrating". What about references? What about networking? What about published books and papers. This stuff is very hard to make up, especially references.

<comment><USER4> It can be a chicken and the egg problem. None of those matter if the person can code and solve problems, and is a good fit. We don't care if they are 15 or 60 years old.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What? "Implement as much of Minesweeper as you can in an hour?" If you're going to build something--evens something as simple as Minesweeper, you're still going to need time to plan it out, diagram it, decide which modules call into which other ones, decide on the data structures, etc. Diving right into writing code so you can get _something_ done in an hour is probably the worst strategy if your goal is to do it right.

I'd rather work with the person who would approach that by taking 3 hours to plan, 3 hours to code, and 2 hours to bug fix, rather than the "Ready, Fire, Aim" person who took 1 hour to code, 4 hours to fix what he did, 8 more hours to find his design was totally wrong and re-do major portions of it, 8 more fixing the bugs in that version........

Unless you plan to filter out the people who just jumped into the code, in which the exercise is just a trick question.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've had folks who just jump into the code without any planning. It usually bites them about 20-30 minutes in. On the other hand, I remember one guy who spent the first 20 minutes planning and only 40 coding and ended up doing better than most.

The point here is not "Write as many lines of code as you can". I _want_ the candidate to plan - it's a crucial part of the job. FizzBuzz, sorts and the like don't require much planning. Minesweeper does.

<comment><USER6> > I _want_ the candidate to plan

Then ask for that, and assess the plan, otherwise you're expecting Carnac the Magnificent: [http://raganwald.com/2015/05/08/carnac-the- magnificent.html](http://raganwald.com/2015/05/08/carnac-the-magnificent.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, like, my own personal experience...

A couple of years ago I applied for a certain company that this year turned out to be a unicorn.

The automated reply said to build a Minesweeper. So I did. It took a several hours to get into a shape that is playable. Then it took several days to polish it into app store quality.

You can play here: [http://www.ronilan.com/bugsweeper/](http://www.ronilan.com/bugsweeper/)

Download here: [http://www.appstore.com/bugsweepergame](http://www.appstore.com/bugsweepergame)

And copy as much as you want from here: [http://www.ronilan.com/bugsweeper/js/bugsweeper.js](http://www.ronilan.com/bugsweeper/js/bugsweeper.js)

If you are wondering how it went from there, they were "evasive". Then I got a softball "center a div" interview with one of their front-ends. Then I got a polite no thanks from the recruiter.

And that's all I have to say about it.

<comment><USER8> Automated response questions are so disrespectful. "We won't take the time to see if we're in any way interested, and won't unless you devote your own time."

<comment><USER9> Even worse are automated responses from a no-reply emails like jobvite or friends. If I already took the time to interview with you, invested hours of my personal time into you, maybe even took a day off just so I can make your weird schedule, give me at least a personal answer or a chance to ask for questions.

I love to learn new things and actually really want to learn about the mistakes I made. Giving me a "no thank you" from a noreply after all that time is like a big middle finger in the face.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I live in Switzerland and I used to code for a living. As an external, I hire engineers for different startups in Zurich.

As I got deeper into IT-recruiting, I realised that candidate filtering at the top of the funnel is fundamentally broken.

The market for software engineers is different from the market for - let's say - actors. Especially for senior developers there is way more demand than there is supply.

This has the very important implication that as a company you can not annoy candidates too much. Asking for tedious homework, too many coding challenges or references might be already overkill. Good people do not really need to work for you; they can also work for Google Zürich (biggest engineering office outside the US), or other cool tech-companies / ETH-spinoffs.

If you look for a tech-job in the most liveable city in the world, check out my story "8 reasons why I moved to Switzerland to work in IT" on [https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i- moved-t...](https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-to- switzerland-to-work-in-it-c7ac18af4f90) or send me a mail to the mail-address in my HN-profile.

<comment><USER11> Don't get me wrong, but your comment reads like an ad.

<comment><USER12> Native advertising ... in the comments.

<comment><USER10> I sincerely believe that living and working in Switzerland is nicer than anywhere else in Europe.

With my comments I raise awareness for my side-income but primarily I try adding value to HN discussions.

<comment><USER12> I was joking. You are entirely entitled to give your perspective and advertise your services as long as you are transparent about it, which you were. No apologies or explanations needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if the OP has ever read any actual research on effective hiring practices. I have a FAQ for that.[1] The short answer that research gives is to set up an actual work-sample test for the job in question. The longer answer is to add in a VALIDATED test of the worker's general cognitive ability. But if that kind of test isn't validated, the employer can be subject to legal consequences in the United States if the test has "adverse impact" on protected minority groups. Rather than just making up hiring procedures, companies ought to do research on what works for finding better workers and what is not legally risky for the company.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4613543)

<comment><USER14> I can confirm that this works incredibly well. At my previous job, my team was responsible for technical training. So our interview process involved having the interviewee give a 30-minute presentation and teach us (the interviewers) a technical topic. Everyone we hired ended up having stellar job performance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I had an interview like this recently. A "live coding" exercise after (in their words) two excellent phone screens. The test was to implement a class which would be run through a bunch of unit tests. Simple right? It turned out to be a disaster.

First was the choice of language. They offered to take it in JS, Ruby, Python, or Java. I'm a .NET developer whose competent with JS, but I really could be better at it. I asked to take it in C# but they refused and said it's not about specific language knowledge. So I did in in JS. I turned out to be almost completely about JS specifics and quirks. Because I've been learning JS recently, I've had the fortune of having to avoid the bad parts. When asked to recite them I struggled. This part is obviously my fault but if I had been allowed to perform in C#, I would have done a hell of a lot better.

Second was the environment. I have very limited exposure to programming on a Macbook and I spent the first few minutes struggling to translate all of my shortcuts. During a timed test it was pretty disheartening to not be able to type as fast as I could. I haven't used Sublime before but the default theme was near unreadable and I was allowed to switch it after a few minutes. The third was the test framework. I really wasn't familiar with how Jasmine worked in the browser, and it showed. Again, my fault. But taking 5 minutes to familiarize me with their setup would have made things go much, much better for me.

Before I get jumped on for blaming them for my poor performance, this was for a test automation role. I explicitly said that my JS/Jasmine/etc. skills were not that great and they still brought me on site.

Honestly, I would have preferred the whiteboard. Each test took up nearly the entire period, leaving very short time for talks about what I really care about - culture. I have a Github with a bunch of good projects. I've been employed as a developer for a while now. I can obviously program well. Drop the bullshit and lets talk.

<comment><USER16> > "I asked to take it in C# but they refused and said it's not about specific > language knowledge."

So.. "This isnt about a specific language, but you must use the ones we tell you!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a counterpoint, I'm fairly confident it's possible to hire engineers without seeing the code anything at all. I'm not an expert, but I do know that I've never felt like a homework/sample code/whiteboard exercise I've done has borne any real resemblance to the work I do.

I'm generally a fan of getting a candidate to tell me about aspects of their previous work that relate to the skills the job requires. I wrote this at my last job on the topic: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alanjohnson/were-hiring- engine...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alanjohnson/were-hiring-engineers- all-wrong_b_7973484.html)

<comment><USER18> I've never been required to provide a code sample for a job interview nor have I ever asked for one. I've had pretty good luck sussing out who knows what they're doing based on their ability to talk in detail about what work they've been doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "You wouldn't evaluate a chef's ability to cook by depriving them of saucepans, why cut off Google?"

Depriving of recipe books is perhaps a better analogy? I think depriving of saucepans would be like hiding the keyboard!

That actually works pretty well, even doctors are expected to look things up if they get stuck. Why should programmers be any different? SO is extremely useful for funny edge cases in software that someone else spent an afternoon trying to figure out.

</comment><comment><USER20> Uggh, been interviewing this month and it has been mostly awful. From "who was your worst boss/what is your worst quality" to "solve this problem with us watching, clock ticking, and a $150k on the line."

Also, the only profession (I know of) where twenty years experience is considered a detriment. Perhaps fashion modeling is another? ;)

<comment><USER21> It's odd, isn't it? Twenty years of experience is considered good, but twenty extra years of age is considered bad. This actually goes a long way to explaining why interviews are such an odd experience - companies recruit for experience (must have launched successfully with experience scaling), and then testing for exam-ready knowledge of second year algorithms and data structures. I suppose another way to put it is that employers would like people with 20 years of experience who graduated from college last week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Where I work we do something similar but it's a "homework" question we give to people who pass our initial resume screen ([https://github.com/maxmind/dev- hire-homework](https://github.com/maxmind/dev-hire-homework)). We tell them not to spend more than 1-2 hours on it. We decide whether or not to interview them based on the quality of the code they produce.

In the interview we ask things like:

* what is OO and how is it different from procedural programming? (high level conceptual) * why do you want to leave your current position? * what appeals to you about this job? what do you think you might like least? * what is the purpose of testing? * tell us about the programming languages you've used. what's your favorite? what do you like most about it? least?

I'd rather have a more conversational interview after already having established their ability to code.

<comment><USER23> Homework exercises are a large burden on the candidate, so expect to half your pool for that reason alone. I only do about half or less of these, as most are crappy an unrelated to the job. I prefer to plan and do things thoroughly, not rush a solution out in a couple of hours. And to be honest asking for more than a couple of hours is more than you should be asking unless you are willing to pay.

<comment><USER24> "Homework exercises are a large burden on the candidate"

People keep saying that, but I'd MUCH, MUCH rather do a single couple of hour "homework exercise" that I can submit than do a full day (or more!) of "implement whatever pet algorithm/data structure I think is really swell" for like 3-6 different people in series, which is how a horrifyingly large amount of companies still tend to do things.

Give me a task, let me do it, have your tech people discuss my solution amongst themselves. If they like my solution bring me in to discuss it (to verify I didn't "cheat") and to determine culture fit. Seems like a lot less wasted time for everyone with far few of the stressors (hard time pressure, etc) that make most tech interviews so amazingly terrible.

<comment><USER25> > People keep saying that, but I'd MUCH, MUCH rather do a single couple of > hour "homework exercise" that I can submit than do a full day (or more!) of > "implement whatever pet algorithm/data structure I think is really swell" > for like 3-6 different people in series, which is how a horrifyingly large > amount of companies still tend to do things.

The best part is that a lot of companies make you do both : ) I've had that happen to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This methodology may correctly filter the candidates the author is seeking, but if this made up the bulk of any interview I attended, it would probably turn me off the role.

FWIW, when I attend an interview, as either party, I want to have a discussion, a bit of back-and-forth, and crucially to determine if it's likely we'd be able to get on, day to day. Coding competency is _not_ the only important thing. And anyway, it can easily be established via a bit of white- boarding, conversation, and preparatory reviews of any existing work they have online. If you are in doubt, then maybe pair on a fun little algorithm,... something that's not solved, and not dull. Something original would be best.

Being given a pre-packaged task to complete feels very procedural and bland...

<comment><USER27> > Being given a pre-packaged task to complete feels very procedural and > bland...

This part is important:

> Having a consistent test also allows me to compare candidates easily and > without bias.

Also, I think most people would care more about the content of the exercise, rather than whether it is prepackaged or not.

<comment><USER26> I get that. I just would rather not feel like a monkey being prodded whenever I attend an interview. An interview being repeatable (for comparative purposes) brings no value to the candidate.

<comment><AUTHOR> It does if the candidate is something that the interviewer might be biased against (race, gender, opinions on Star Wars). Avoiding bias in interviews helps everyone except those who rely on irrelevant qualities to get jobs.

<comment><USER26> Maybe, but I feel that the answer to such biases is to introspect and understand your potential prejudgements, and then not let them specifically sway you. Anyway, the accepted alternative, an entirely meritocratic process, is fraught with issues too, as the playing field is inegalitarian to begin with -- so those candidates who might be the victims of unfair biases could already be at a disadvantage since they might not have received the privileges that preempt meritocratic success. It is assumed that relying totally on a candidate's coding ability somehow avoids the issue of bias and works to mend our diversity issues in this sector, but it actually merely plays into the entrenched state of things. I don't have a solution, but this entire problem- set is certainly deserving of more nuanced thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Interesting points. Like the idea of the giving a developer actual development tasks.

This is how I interview - We have a bitbucket set up with a project very similar to our current site. We simply ask everyone who applies to get the code from Bitbucket and install it locally. And then fix a simple bug. Most developers who are well versed in the basics are able to install the code in 2-4 hours. People new to something specific are stuck for a day. It helps us weed out people who are a) Not comfortable reading code b) Not hungry enough to ask questions or google a little bit if they do not understand c) Not able to debug and fix simple issues.

So far all developers who have lasted that test have been good technically. Its another challenge to keep them motivated over long periods of time.

<comment><USER29> I love the bug fixing stuff especially if I'm allowed to re-architect your stuff so that it's less prone to bugs to start with ;)

<comment><USER28> Thats the trick to guarantee a job

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Would be funny to come into an interview as the candidate and give the employer pre-packaged tasks to complete to evaluate them on, to decide if I as the candidate actually want to work there.

<comment><USER31> I've been toying with the idea of asking for a reverse interview. I get to ask about the challenges they've solved in great detail and how they dealt with potential and actual issues. They get to answer and decide to I know what I'm talking about.

<comment><USER32> Is this not the whole point of the interview for you now anyway? For me, if I go in somewhere and get grilled for X hours and they deprive me of a chance to ask about certain aspects of the company, you can guarantee u won't take the job.

<comment><USER31> That's what I'm counting on. Most startups are sufficiently desperate for hiring that you can ask for things like "I'd like to grab coffee with the CTO" and they will do it (that seems trivial at a 10 person company, but I've heard it happen at 100+ person teams).

Where I am right now, I'm pretty happy just turning down the interview if I don't oblige.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I was really liking this piece, but one inherent flaw of the example given is that I've already implemented minesweeper in javascript once a couple years ago for a programming challenge, so I'd have a major advantage over most candidates.

For example, I immediately recalled I solved the problem of mine placement with a 1 liner like:

var cells = ('*'.repeat(mineCount) + ' '.repeat(size - mineCount)).split("").sort(function() { return math.rand() - .5; });

<comment><USER34> Correct me if I am wrong, but wont this result in the mines being placed in the front more often than not? sort(function() { return math.rand() - .5; }) doesnt result in a truely random distribution.

<comment><USER35> > doesnt result in a truely random distribution.

It evenly distributes over 0-1. Removing .5, just distributes it evenly between -0.5 and +0.5. Sort basically says >0, the first option should come first and if <0, the second option should come first.

I believe this still maintains a random distribution and is quite a tidy solution. Thoughts?

<comment><USER36> It can be extremely biased, and the results can depend on the sort algorithm, because what you're randomizing is the comparison results, not the order. Consider insertion sort: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_sort](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_sort)

As the list is sorted, elements are inserted from the back by finding the first element that the new element is smaller than. The last element to be inserted is the one at the end of the unsorted array, and, with a random comparator, it has a 50% chance of being "larger" than the biggest of the rest of the elements, and thus remaining at the end of the list.

Microsoft used this technique to "randomize" a list of browsers back in 2010, but, when viewing the page in IE, it ended up putting IE in the last position (out of a set of five browsers) 50% of the time: [http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/02/microsoft-random- browser...](http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/02/microsoft-random-browser- ballot.html)

<comment><USER35> Ah, yes; that's a great point about the sort algorithm!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Am I the only one who, when being interviewed, doesn't mind whiteboard coding?

At interviews where I've later been given an offer, it's usually a relatively small algorithmic design challenge, where the specifics don't matter, just the pseudocode.

In interviews I've given involving whiteboard programming, I've always emphasized that it doesn't have to be valid or even semi-valid code for any language, just a semi-rigorous pseudocode expression of an idea.

I think, "if done correctly", whiteboard coding is a good filter for those who can think algorithmically, who can catch the bugs that aren't typos, but incorrect assumptions.

That said, that sort of mindset may not be what you need for your role. Need to consider that.

\---

Tangentially, one of the better technical interview experiences I've had involved chatting for a while, the interviewer describing an actual problem they'd had (relevant to the role and the company's product), and discussing my approach to the problem. (and passing or failing the interview wasn't dependent on using the exact same approach...)

<comment><USER38> > Am I the only one who, when being interviewed, doesn't mind whiteboard > coding?

I'm sure you're not, but my experience is completely opposite of yours. I'm still relatively early on in my career (I've had 3 software jobs, but have grown up coding since I was 12), but every job I scored was one that didn't use a whiteboard/paper problem during an interview.

I got a lot better at whiteboards with practice; but early on, every whiteboard problem I received resulted in me blanking on even the most basic concepts. I would have no idea how to solve problems on a whiteboard that I explicitly solved in a codebase the week prior. Then I'd step out of the interview and the solution would just hit me.

It's like state-dependent learning, in a way. As I got tested more on whiteboard coding, I figured out that whole problem-solving process better, and I do pretty well on them now. Still, I continue complain about those problems. They feel like a completely foreign, perpendicular challenge compared to having a discussion, answering questions, or writing code to solve the same problem. It's not a skill I've ever used outside of interviews, nor is it a situation that has ever been simulated at any workplace I've been at.

There's nothing wrong with evaluating a candidate's whiteboard presentation skills. If the goal is specifically to evaluate technical or algorithmic knowledge, it's worth taking into account that testing for that knowledge on a whiteboard can introduce a side-effect that bottlenecks the candidate's ability to present their answer.

<comment><USER39> Whiteboarding is a skill that the vast majority of people will have to work to obtain. It's not the natural way that we work.

Personally, if you know you're going to be interviewing, start practicing for whiteboarding. There are books and online resources available to help you get at least comfortable with it. The resources also help drive home that whiteboarding should be about process, not about perfect solutions.

Algorithms have generally taken years to perfect by PhDs, why should you be expected to perfect an algorithm you haven't memorised in 30 minutes?

<comment><USER40> Do that many places ask you to perfect an algorithm or solution? Most places me and my friends have done typically just want any brute force solution with some discussion as potential ways one might improve or discussion on why this might not be ideal without having better ideas. And this is from top places and offers. And were from non top schools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm a Software Engineer, have been passionate about computers my entire life, and I've never once played Minesweeper.

I actually have no idea how.

</comment><comment><USER42> I still think the best way to interview a programmer is to just talk to them. Ask them about their experiences. I've known a bunch of programmers in my time, and I feel I can tell if someone is the real deal within a few minutes of them speaking.

I'm happily employed at the moment (knock on wood) but when that day comes where I have to go back out an interview, I don't plan on wasting any time doing these kinds of interviews where they make you spend hours doing some kind of programming challenge. To me it's an indicator that the company doesn't have anybody knowledgeable to actually pick out the best programmers.

<comment><USER6> > I still think the best way to interview a programmer is to just talk to > them.

You're wrong: [http://www.ioatwork.com/selection-methods-almost-a- century-o...](http://www.ioatwork.com/selection-methods-almost-a-century-of- research/)

<comment><USER23> I can see this being misinterperted badly in the field of software engineering (it doesn't seem specific to software) as it says work sample tests are best, yet most software is large scale, and takes time to develop and ought to involve planning, architecture, coding, technology selection, testing. So most "sample work" for an interview will actually be nothing like that but a short rushed version that is supposed to emulate it in some way.

<comment><USER6> > I can see this being misinterperted badly in the field of software > engineering (it doesn't seem specific to software)

Would you prefer Google's take on it? [http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hire-like- google/](http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hire-like-google/)

> So most "sample work" for an interview will actually be nothing like that > but a short rushed version that is supposed to emulate it in some way.

Yes, that's the idea! And it works.

<comment><USER23> From the article :

"but for many jobs there are too many variables involved day‑to‑day to allow the construction of a representative work sample. All our technical hires, whether in engineering or product management, go through a work sample test of sorts, where they are asked to solve engineering problems during the interview."

Plus a number of other things according to the article.

Sounds like they are agreeing with what I said (at least to some degree), but still asking for something anyway.

<comment><USER6> > Plus a number of other things according to the article.

Yes, combining methods works even better! It's far from saying that the best way is "to just talk to them".

<comment><USER23> It won't work better if you give candidates so many tasks that they think, "why bother?" and go for another easier job application process instead. People have other commitments, and we are often told there is a shortage of developers.

I have told potential employees as much after they asked for a sample of my work (which I had made available for that purpose), and they after that, they still wanted a three hour exercise done before I had even spoken to anyone.

In fact I am about to start a new job in the new year, I had a few interviews, and a couple of jobs that interested me sufficiently. One involved a three hour test, the other asked for a sample for my work. Guess which one I took? Guess which one the interviewer said they were struggling to find candidates?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I did the challenge and it was a fun endeavor. I'm mainly a C# dev. I dabble in AngularJS at work but don't consider myself a pro. I'd never tried drawing to the canvas so this seemed like a good challenge.

I managed to get something fairly workable, albeit ugly code-wise, banged out in 1hr. If you reviewed my google searches, you would see that:

\- I didn't know how to init a 2d array in javascript

\- I didn't know that the things on the canvas couldn't be accessed directly for click handlers

\- I cheated on the solution for finding neighbors because I was running out of time

*edit formatting

</comment><comment><USER44> I've been giving interviews for almost a decade now and I've both tried and seen many different approaches. Yet, I think the MOST important part of the 45-60 minute time slot I get with a candidate (or future coworker), is the conversation.

1) I want to see passion for solving problems in the space. There are endless problems to solve in the industry, but I want to know they'll be excited to work on my team's problems.

2) What are they doing here? Was this a numbers game (interview at a ton of different places in hopes of getting one good offer)? Were they recruited or did they actively seek this position out?

I've seen candidates where in one interview I have to throw multiple problems at them, because they think about it for 30 seconds and then come up with a correct solution and quickly write it out on the board. I'll usually run out of questions for these candidates.

Ultimately, white-board coding works well for some, and is a complete disaster for others. Yet I don't believe it means white-board interviews should be thrown away in an effort to be "fair." I just think as engineers, if we really want to land a position at a Google, Facebook, or Uber, etc, is it too much to ask that we study up on our algorithms?

</comment><comment><USER45> Do JavaScript experts consider JSBin a decent environment for this task? JavaScript is a bit verbose and I would resent simply the aspect of having to write a substantial amount of JavaScript without autocomplete.

I just played with JSBin and it doesn't have autocomplete out of the box.

Edit: whoa I just re-read the OP and found this

> Most [candidates] tend to use the laptop & JSBin provided

That's super hypocritical, OP (see your paragraph headed "Comfortable situation")! If you "provide" them with an environment of course most are going to use what you provide since that is what you are suggesting. So now you're filtering for people for whom that laptop model and the JSBin tool are familiar and comfortable.

Or in the case of those that reject your environment and choose their own familiar and comfortable laptop and editor, you are filtering for those with the self-confidence to reject the suggestion of the interviewer, which doesn't really help with your stated goal.

It's a shame because I like some of your other points :/

</comment><comment><USER46> My personal, preferred way to interview data scientists (besides administering a work sample test) is to talk to them about the most challenging effort they've been a part of. Start with understanding the overall business context and the technical infrastructure they were working with, and gradually follow through until you understand the key ideas that underpin the innovation.

The key is to get them to explain things until you understand the essence at a foundational level - hopefully you understand what combination of the notions of statistical independence / power / dimensionality / algorithmic complexity has birthed novel system or algorithm they built.

The process selects for people who have a) already built something substantial, and b) have the communication skills to explain it.

</comment><comment><USER47> Completely am on-board with the descriptions of false positive/negative

I agree that this seems like a good way to establish someone's technical competence. I do wonder though from the interviewee's side what the optimal time to spend on one person is. It's kind of like dating right? (Well what I imagine dating would be like if I lived in a big city) You have concurrent first impressions with maybe second and third follow ups before you seal the deal. This may be a bit like asking for a relationship on the first date.

Demonstrating ability in this manner works for more junior people who maybe don't have a github or other personal projects, but I'd consider discussing and reviewing those more valuable.

</comment><comment><USER48> I somehow think that the interviewer should also be interviewed at the same time. If you have that kind of experience under your belt, one might definitely be interested in knowing if the person he/she would work under is really capable or not ? Working with/under someone lesser than you n same person is taking your interview, its kind of a insult to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER49> "Finally, I assumed that most everyone played Minesweeper at one point and I wouldn't need to explain the rules."¨

I stopped making such assumptions since I started interviewing.

Warming up question: "How would you check that two strings are the anagram of each other ?"

"What's an anagram ?"

</comment><comment><USER50> > "Candidates are also reviewing a company. They'll be dedicating several > years of their lives to this workplace and will be looking at the interview > filter to see what it takes to get in."

Really? I barely know anyone who works for several years at any place. I'm looking at whether I can tolerate it for six months. That's only so I can take a job search break for a few months before hitting the grind again. I'd love to work at a place that's so great that I'd be there for several years but that's hard to imagine. Most companies I've interviewed with don't exist in 3 years, let alone 'several' (7+).

<comment><USER51> This is a very small niche that you live in. I can tell you that a candidate with 7+ 6 month engagements would be unlikely to get a position at my current company (mid-sized business intelligence consultancy), and simply wouldn't be considered at my last company (old school enterprise environment).

The startup scene is not representative of the job market for the majority of people.

<comment><USER38> >The startup scene is not representative of the job market for the majority of people.

On that note, I'm surprised that startups would hire frequent-short-stint employees. The startup I work at has a great proportion of people who have stuck around since the early days; yet I have worked (and interviewed) at large companies where everyone bails within a couple of years max. I don't know what the West Coast "scene" is like, so my company probably doesn't resemble SV startups, but the pay is great, the people are smart and passionate, and the businesses is hitting all of its goals, so I'm not complaining.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> At the Beginning Be warm ask them how they are Listen Be considerate ssk if it's still a good time Don't Be Too Familiar Use Appropriate Language Explain what is going to happen</comment>


A Threat to U.S. Democracy: Political Dysfunction - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/business/economy/trump-election-democracy.html <comment><USER2> _Now_ they notice? Voter efficiency (the number of voters needed to get a legislative seat) has an all-time high partisan divide, especially thanks to gerrymandering designed to ensure the party in power in 2010 can just _win everything this whole decade_. The two "political parties" have effectively become regional groupings that set rural against urban.

The term "working class" has been racialized and regionalized to somehow refer exclusively to white people in rural states, even while non-white and/or non- rural people work _most_ of the low-wage jobs in the country. Meanwhile, actual class politics is regularly preempted from above, preventing localities and states from improving their labor laws, health-care programs, or the like.

Norms around the Senate filibuster broke down _years_ ago when it was changed into a mere procedural maneuver that allows for blocking literally anything without a supermajority. The bargaining process of nominating Supreme Court (and federal court) justices has turned into a stonewall.

Oh, and most so-called ballots in the United States don't actually have more than one candidate for each office, which contributes heavily to the >90% re- election rates for incumbents.

In short: we live in a _de facto_ one-party state, with the only real variation being whether the Blue neoliberal capitalist party or the Red authoritarian nationalist/identitarian capitalist party has one-party control _where you live_.

And _now_ the New York Times call it a threat to democracy?

<comment><USER3> Calling out Republicans specifically over identity politics seems kind of silly, given how much of the Democratic Party's politics is based on race and gender.

<comment><USER2> There's a difference between saying "Group X is pretty neat" and "Group Y are the only real Americans and should have an exclusive grip on political power."

So for instance, the Democrats run on, "We need equal pay for women." The actual size of the wage gap can be debated as a factual matter (once you factor out different professions and hours-worked, it's usually about 5-10%). Then the Republicans run on, "Real Americans need to take our country back!", despite their "real Americans" (as a conjunction of features) composing a _minority group_ that's only 20% of the country[1].

One of them plays the identity politics of inclusion, often duplicitously. The other plays the identity politics of exclusion and minority rule, often honestly.

There's a vast difference between obnoxious campaign rhetoric along the lines of Clinton and an organized decades-long campaign to disenfranchise people who don't vote the way you want or don't share your conjunction of identity features.

[1] -- [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-20-percent-of- voter...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-20-percent-of-voters-are- real-americans/)

<comment><USER4> Stubbornly insisting that your party of choice holds the moral high ground and the other side is morally reprehensible is only going to get you President Trump. You'd do much better to assume that your political opponents voted the way they did in spite of those issues you consider immoral rather than because of them and then see where you can find common ground to work with them.

<comment><USER2> You should notice how I didn't refer to _either_ party as _mine_ , and specifically called them both "capitalist parties", which for me is a term of insult.

My objection is that if I work outside the two-party electoral system I am labelled a lunatic and potentially even criminal, while if I work inside it, my voice is diluted for partisan advantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The sum are greater than the parts.

Problems with US elections, in rank order:

* Gerrymandering (unfair redistricting) * First Past the Post * Restrictive voting rules * Expensive campaigns

Very briefly...

REDMAP worked too well, gave us the Tea Party, enabled unprecedented obstructionism. Both the GOP and the Dems have an interest in undoing REDMAP. Maybe with Iowa style redistricting.

Problems with FPTP are widely documented. Fix is Approval Voting for executive races and senators, Proportional Voting for assemblies. One side effect will be reduced campaign expenses and mudslinging, because Approval Voting makes the candidates play nice (mostly).

Adopt universal voting, re-enfranchise felons. This will prevent caging, purging. Sadly, it does not increase voter turnout.

Campaigns costs are currently being driven by ballot chasing (enabled by switch to postal ballots) and advertising. Everyone knows its past the point of diminishing returns, but no one can "disarm" unilaterally. So the madness continues. Switching back to (mostly) poll site based voting and restoring the Fairness Doctrine would mostly fix this problem. Another solution is publicly financed campaigns, which would be more palatable once costs come back down.

I could go on and on. But that's the thumbnail of the most important.

Source: Election integrity activist (voting machines, HAVA) for years, ran for office.

PS- While popular vote for US President is inevitable, absolutely support it, it's not my personal highest priority.

<comment><USER6> How many seats are actually gerrymandered? From the sources I can find, it's around a net 5 seat advantage for the republicans (out of 435). If that is the biggest issue in American politics, then the rest can't be that bad.

<comment><USER5> _" If [gerrymandering] is the biggest issue... then the rest can't be that bad."_

Gerrymandering segregates like with like, increasing partisanship. Favoring the most extreme candidate. Meaning seats are won during low turnout primaries vs general elections. Meaning voters have no meaningful choice.

Gerrymandering is incumbency protection. If you support term limits, you'd logically also support more competitive redistricting.

 _" From the sources I can find, it's around a net 5..."_

Look harder.

<comment><USER2> >Meaning seats are won during low turnout primaries vs general elections. Meaning voters have no meaningful choice.

And at that point, we might as well institute California-style jungle primaries everywhere, which at least ensures that a real "general election" takes place (albeit at an awkward time) followed by a runoff for the "lesser evils".

<comment><USER5> Ya. My fantasy notion is that Approval Voting would moot the primaries.

This would save (the tax payers) money.

Having fewer elections would help reduce voter fatigue.

It'd also moot the spoiler effect, so third parties can be granted access to the ballot, with little downside, leading to more voter choice.

My only (hypothetical) concern with Approval Voting is having too many choices (per race), the paradox of choice leading to indecision. But that's just an intuition; I have no data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Soon it will all be clear. Many of these new folks have zero idea how to manage the world's largest economy from the inside, and I fear that trying to change too many things all at once will whack the whole economy in ways we have never seen before. Like writing software, you can't change everything all at once and hope to wind up with something that works.

<comment><USER8> The idea is that a large part of the electorate in the US doesn't want the economy managed _at all_. Trump certainly isn't advocating for free markets, but he does offer a viable alternative to increasing state control over our economy.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash What is increasing state control of the economy?

If offering tax breaks to a company to get it to offshore _fewer_ jobs (but not all) is not state control of the economy, then what is it?

<comment><USER9> It's buying corporate assets and shares in order to keep failing companies afloat and forcing out CEOs whom they view as under-performing. It's passing a law forcing every single individual in the country to spend their own money purchasing a particular, expensive service from a corporate provider.

Tariffs were the first major thing the first US congress implemented to ensure domestic manufacturing could be established and compete with what were up until then cheap imports.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They keep calling Trump a populist like it's some kind of insult. As though _real_ politicians should be globalist, selfish opportunists who don't give a shit about the people or something. It's one thing to report on factual evidence that contradicts policy or positions, but the "news" outlets need to stop trying to blame/shame the American voter for the horrible performance of their anointed shit-tier candidate.

<comment><USER10> > They keep calling Trump a populist like it's some kind of insult. As though > real politicians should be globalist, selfish opportunists who don't give a > shit about the people or something.

It's not just that he's a populist, although that's part of it (just saying extraordinary things to get people riled up--and then literally dismissing those things later saying "it worked great before the election but there's no interest now"). It that and that he _is_ a globalist, selfish, opportunist that does not give a shit about the people.

He's a billionaire elitist who's claiming to drain the swamp of elites. And then appoints more elites to cabinet positions. That is, he has all these populist claims but he's so clearly part of the problem, so why are voters buying it "hook, line, and sinker" so to speak?

<comment><USER11> Ha ha ha he's not though. You dont know what a globalist is.

Just being a billionaire doesn't mean he is a globalist. Running a multinational corporation doesn't mean he us a globalist. A globalist is someone who wants to subjugate the sovereignity of individual nation states under the power of a global government, whether overtly (the un) or covertly (bilderbergs/free masons/other conspiracy groups). His whole campaign was about increasing American sovereignity. Perhaps you've heard of his catch phrase, make America great again?

<comment><USER2> >A globalist is someone who wants to subjugate the sovereignity of individual nation states under the power of a global government, whether overtly (the un) or covertly (bilderbergs/free masons/other conspiracy groups).

In that case, outside crazy conspiracy websites, there are basically no actual globalists on the planet. Literally zero office-holding politicians have proposed a world government.

<comment><USER11> Ha ha I actually agree with you, but it's funny how you immediately dismiss any possibilities for potential condraticting evidence.

> outside crazy conspiracy websites

You could potentially dismiss any Web source with this standard. What makes a website a crazy conspiracy web site?

> basically no actual globalist on the planet

The un is literally a globalist organization that nation states voluntarily subjugate their natonal sovereignity to.

> literally zero.

There is never literally zero of people holding various political beliefs.

Anyways, I agree with you, but maybe you should reevaluate your critical thinking skills and base political assumptions.

<comment><USER2> >The un is literally a globalist organization that nation states voluntarily subjugate their natonal sovereignity to.

No, it isn't. Every country belonging to the UN is sovereign. The UN has zero legislative power, no enforcement arm, no army or police force. International law is still based on _treaties_ between sovereign countries, not on a global legislature.

>There is never literally zero of people holding various political beliefs.

I did not say literally zero _people_. I said literally zero _elected officials_ , which is a much smaller set of people with much more constrained political opinions. At worst, you could find a Green Party city official somewhere who _might_ talk about world government if you get them thoroughly drunk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Many seem to hold as an axiom that action of any sort is the primary measure for success, and the greatest condemnation should be held for those who wish to prevent it. I've wondered how much of this is genuine and how much is a way of championing their party's political goals when in power, while attempting to sound neutral and devoted only to Democracy.

I'm eager to see how well this holds up when the other team holds power.

<comment><USER13> I don't think people believe that _any_ action is important. The type of action matters.

But when you try to do things that the other side ought to like, and then they block it out of spite, that seems like a good sort of action, and preventing it is worthy of condemnation. For two recent examples, Obamacare is basically a copy/paste of a Republican health care reform proposal, but had heroic efforts to block it by Republicans, and Merrick Garland was presented as the sort of moderate justice that Republicans wanted but Obama would never in a million years nominate, then when he nominated Garland they immediately turned around and refused to even discuss him.

As far as false equivalence between the two major parties goes, Democrats are _already_ talking about trying to work with the new Republican administration and it hasn't even been sworn in yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's more than one way to rig the system. A substantial increase in immigration and an amnesty program would have provided an even bigger opportunity for Democrats than gerrymandering has for the Republicans.

</comment><comment><USER14> >>Still, the embrace by millions of American voters of a billionaire authoritarian who argues that the "system" has been rigged to serve a cosmopolitan ruling class against the interests of ordinary people does suggest that American democracy has a unique credibility problem.

Just goes to show people are willing to appeal all the way past the legal/political system to the foundations of our country due to losing a vote.

If his words had any practical influence or any accountability for the implications of such a statement I'd be more likely to take him seriously.

<comment><USER15> I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but it's interesting to look back and notice that the top layer of the billionaire class -- the richest of the rich -- were either backing Clinton or taking great pains to distance themselves from and criticize Trump during the campaign.

It might be viewed as a battle of the major billionaires against the minor billionaires -- and the major billionaires lost. In any event, the vast majority of the wealth was on Clinton's side or at least critical of Trump.

Billionaires who directly supported and/or endorsed Hillary Clinton:

* Warren Buffett: $73 billion

* Bill Gates: $84 billion

* Carlos Slim: $50 billion

* Michael Bloomberg: $40 billion

* George Soros: $25 billion

* Laurene Powell Jobs: $19 billion

* Elon Musk: $12 billion

* Eric Schmidt: $11 billion

Billionaires who (at least) were critical of Trump, and refused to endorse or support him:

* Jeff Bezos: $65 billion

* Mark Zuckerberg: $53 billion

* Charles Koch: $43 billion

* Mark Cuban: $3 billion

Billionaires who supported Trump:

* Sheldon Adelson: $32 billion

* Carl Icahn: $18 billion

* John Paulson: $8.6 billion

* Woody Johnson: $3.5 billion

* Peter Thiel: $2.7 billion

* Wilbur Ross: $2.5 billion

* Tom Barrack: $1 billion

* Stephen Feinberg: $1.25 billion

* T Boone Pickens: $0.5 billion

* Steven Mnuchin: < $1 billion

<comment><USER16> Is there a canonical list of US billionaires, or say, top 100 wealthiest US citizens? I suspect that not all provide their endorsement. I'd be interested in seeing a more complete breakdown (assuming this isn't).

<comment><USER15> yeah, good point. my list is not exhaustive. it's hard to find an exhaustive list of the billionaires and whom they supported. if you search for "billionaires for trump" and "bilionaires for clinton" and such things, it sure _looks_ like nearly all of the wealthiest billionaires supported Clinton.

if we just add up the Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg and Soros fortunes, the number is awfully large though. it's about $225 billion. and you end up thinking "if Trump had equal support from the wealthiest billionaires, who are they? i can't seem to find them."

<comment><USER16> I understand what motivated your question; it's not that interesting to me. I'm more interested to see what percentage of the wealthiest are publicly politically active.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Filter your politicians with fMRI before voting for them;

<comment><USER18> But you'll still end up with a dead Salmon.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Ways to find good deals on rent besides Craigslist? - <AUTHOR>

Suggestions for any location are welcome, but if you're going to be specific, SF or NY would be great. <comment><USER2> The best deals never even hit CL as they are usually dealt to someone else before the ad ever goes up.

For the SF Bay Area, where rents are outrageous, house or apartment sharing is really the only way to cut your monthly rent. So get a place but continue to network to get a line on a better place, once you are in the area you want to live.

I do know a guy who would posts ads in CL asking for a room for rent, or in- law units, etc. He has found some nice places for pretty cheap because some of these in-law units are not exactly legal or perhaps the income is not reported and the owner doesn't want ads floating around as evidence.</comment>


Derek Sivers: Books I've Read - <AUTHOR> https://sivers.org/book <comment><USER3> Surprised to find this here.

For what it's worth, for anyone interested, a few things:

#1 : That list is sorted with my top recommendations up top. You can also click to re-sort it by newest or by name, but by default, I highly recommend the ones at the top of the list.

#2 : These aren't summaries of the book! These are just the little points that I personally found surprising or inspiring. If a book wasn't surprising to me - like if I'd already read a few books on the subject - then I'll have very few notes. It doesn't mean the book isn't good. These notes are really just for me, and I started sharing them as an afterthought.

#3 : If you want summaries, I hear [https://www.blinkist.com/](https://www.blinkist.com/) does that.

#4 : If you want the see code for my site, it's all open at [https://code.sivers.org/](https://code.sivers.org/) \- basically a little self-made static site generator in Ruby.

If you have any questions, just email me. Email address in my HN profile here.

\- Derek

<comment><USER4> I'm a pitifully slow reader, I like to stop often and think about new concepts or insights so I can internalize them better. This way of reading is my biggest obstacle in finishing books. I've tried speeding reading and while I can finish chapters faster, I retain much less information like ~40% of concepts.

Any tips for readers like me? Thank you for the wonderful list, I'd like to get through it in this decade if possible :(

<comment><USER3> I read slowly too! I think it's an advantage. The real learning comes when you reflect upon what you've learned.

This great book - "How to Read a Book" \- [https://sivers.org/book/HowToReadABook](https://sivers.org/book/HowToReadABook) \- has a great methodlogy for reading books deeply.

<comment><USER4> Thank you I will check it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would not recommend this as a book list. There is just one book here written before about the year 2000. If you are not reading a regular amount of classics, you are doomed to be historically parochial.

Some people will love these books. If you are not already in that category, I would urge you not to go there. Pop social science and business self-help books are like chocolate - healthy in small doses, as part of a balanced diet.

Sorry to be a nabob of negativism.

<comment><USER6> > If you are not reading a regular amount of classics, you are doomed to be > historically parochial.

Precisely. Often, I cannot relate to classics, and therefore end up feeling let down and questioning the hype. But the reason it is a classic is because it stood out from peers at the time. It is this quality of classics that I believe you are referring to.

> Pop social science and business self-help books are like chocolate - <USER2> > in small doses, as part of a balanced diet.

I suppose it's more like sugar for the brain. Too much of it is bad. But I see what you mean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a lot of books that get suggested to me that are on your list, on topics like Stoicism and Self-help, but I ignore most of them. Many feel like reading them would just be rehashes of early books I have read on the topic with nothing new to contribute.

I like that your approach was to actually read these anyways, most of the time you rate them low because there was nothing new, gives me an idea of what to avoid. Thanks for posting the list!

</comment><comment><USER8> Derek's book notes inspired me to post my own [1]. Making the effort to clean up my notes and go through them strengthens the lessons learned.

However, I'm not sure how valuable these types of notes are for others. Often I find a passage that resonates with me falls flat for others, and vice versa. It depends on other books you've read, life context, etc.

I do try to indicate who might find the book helpful, or who should probably skip it.

[1]: jamesstuber.org/booknotes

</comment><comment><USER9> Slight OT, I had two questions: a. how do you guys apply the stuff you read? b. How many re-reads helps you get most out of the book?

I am on a recent reading spree and as I read the books I keep forgetting the lessons therein. While I have set of highlights, using Play Books and Google docs combo, one thing I found was that 2nd read seems to be better than the first one.

<comment><USER10> I use Paul Graham's advice from his "How You Know" essay [http://www.paulgraham.com/know.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/know.html)

 _" Reading and experience train your model of the world. And even if you forget the experience or what you read, its effect on your model of the world persists."_

Also check out It's Okay to "Forget" What You Read [https://medium.com/the- polymath-project/its-okay-to-forget-w...](https://medium.com/the-polymath- project/its-okay-to-forget-what-you-read-f4ef1c34cc01)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice. I've read a bunch of books and I'm also looking to make something like this. Just a question: I'm not an American, how does copyright work for things like this? Can I write something like a "10 things I learned from <BOOK>" with a few (like < 20) lines copied (or should I paraphrase it?) from the book?

<comment><USER3> I kept my book notes private for years because I assumed it would violate some copyright law to post them.

But one day I tried it anyway. Kept it quiet. But after years, people kept discovering it.

Now the authors contact me thanking me for highlighting their book. And publishers offer to send me new books asking to be included in my list.

So... I guess they don't mind!

I think if you encourage people to buy the book, and aren't trying to replace the book, nobody will complain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, the debunking of many of Daniel Kahneman's insights was covered here earlier:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712)

I would everything on whatever this list is with a huge grain of salt along with any other social-science heavy book.

<comment><USER13> Many? The link only talks about chapter 4 of his book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Derek is such an inspiring guy - check out the Tim Ferris Podcast with him if you haven't already.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnk4sgOFjBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnk4sgOFjBQ)

<comment><USER15> The one with James Altucher is great as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow, that is a lot of self help, is it too much?

<comment><USER17> No amount of self help books is too much, because they have no effect anyway.

<comment><USER18> If I said the same about technical documentation, I bet you'd tell me I was either reading it wrong or I wasn't the target audience in the first place.

<comment><USER17> No, I'd tell you that you are taking a statement about one class of books and apply it to a different one, with different target mission and utility.

Technical documentation has a very narrow scope, and deeply technical writers. It's target users also are engineers directly applying what they read or looking at it for reference to something very specific.

It hasn't been historically the province of any hack and/or snake-oil salesman.

Nor do people buy book after book of technical documentation trying this and that fad to no avail to fill some psychological void. Hmm, now that I read this last sentence again...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a long list, and reading from the bottom up (where the lower rated books are) is good fun.

</comment><comment><USER20> Awesome list. Good way to top up my Audible account!</comment>


In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/85-2/Papers/064.pdf <comment><USER3> If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E. T. Jaynes

available at[http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf](http://www- biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf)

It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.

<comment><USER4> It's a very good book. Just be aware that it is very one-sided in favor of the Bayesian view.

<comment><USER5> That's what makes it a very good book!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's a higher quality PDF available [here]([http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13....](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.2787&rep=rep1&type=pdf)), it has a credit footnote: "Converted to electronic version by: Roby Joehanes, Kansas State University."

That person already did the OCR cleaning (and the fonts are nicer).

</comment><comment> j-pb Its ironic, today we could really use a paper "in defense of fuzzy logic"

<comment><USER7> What is the difference between fuzzy logic and a Bayesian interpretation of probability?

<comment><USER8> Bayesian probability addresses uncertainty about whether an event will/did occur, but treats the actual occurrence of the event as a boolean value of {0, 1}.

Fuzzy logic recognizes degrees of occurrence, represented by any number between 0 and 1. Its proponents contend that this allows richer abstraction of the ways that humans actually perceive and reason about the world. In their view, probability is just a special case of fuzzy logic, using artificially restricted truth values.

If you're interested, check out Kosko's "Fuzziness vs. probability." International Journal of General System 17.2-3 (1990): 211-240 [http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/Fuzziness_Vs_Probability.pdf](http://sipi.usc.edu/~kosko/Fuzziness_Vs_Probability.pdf)

<comment><USER7> I see, that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I could add that truth-likeness might not adequately accommodated by a subjective-probability degree-of-belief model. For example, while I might believe both of these propositions to be true, p=1, one is more uhh truth like:

Donald Trump weighs 107 kg. Donald Trump weighs less than the sun.

</comment><comment><USER9> I suspect that the author's assertion that the degree of belief model is sufficient to account for vagueness in propositions cannot really be defended. Its also obvious the author is not a logician.

</comment><comment><USER10> Why is there a glaring typo in the first sentence of the abstract?

"In this paper, it is argued that probability theory, when used correctly, is _suffrcient_ for the task of reasoning under uncertainty."

<comment><USER11> The paper is probably OCRed.

<comment><USER12> Good point. The rendering of "sufficient" probably uses the triple-ligature for "ffi", where all 3 characters are merged.

The author, Peter Cheeseman, is a reputable figure and a solid practitioner. I'm sure he's just as annoyed that, on the second page, his own name is misspelled as "Cheesemart" ;-).

People may recognize him as a co-creator of the AutoClass software for Bayesian clustering, which was very popular in the late 1990s - <USER2> explanatory paper has 1700 citations.</comment></comment></comment>


France acts against net pirates - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15198093

<comment><USER2> Sixty people disconnected after spending several million euros. Hope the deterrent effect is worth it.

Otherwise, this seems like a huge failure to me, as it had from the start.

<comment><USER3> One could also read this as:

Within the year, of the 650,000 first offenders, there is only a 6.8% recitivism rate. Further, 99.99% of those initial offenders have halted their behavoir before the third strike.

Also, a quick googling also gave me a population for France just over 65 million. Almost 1 out of every 100 people got a piracy warning in the last year. That's... pretty comprehensive.

I was expecting to agree more with the OP here, but this seems to be having either a decent deterrent effect, or the people are getting good at going underground.

<comment><USER4> You're assuming their methods of detecting copyvios are effective. I very much doubt they are, or they would have send out far more than 650k first warnings. It's ludicrous to assume only about 1 to 2% of the ~52 million French internet users pirate stuff.

Having a bad detection rate will automatically result in a low rate of recidivism, simply because you're not likely to catch the same guy twice (unless you watch him more closely). We have pretty much no idea how many of the initial offenders have halted their behavior.

Having a bad detection rate also makes it very easy to "go underground", ie. purposely avoid detection. E.g. using Rapidshare instead of Bittorrent (or the other way around, I have no idea) hardly seems very underground to me.

But yeah: Installing an infrastructure to monitor your citizens internet use and sending out letters from the government, culminating in killing access to one of the primary infrastructures of the modern world is bound to be a pretty damn good deterrent. I'm sure they'll try to make plentiful use of it in the years to come. Maybe inciting dissent (aka "public unrest", "rioting and looting") will soon come with an internet ban.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Disconnected for a maximum of one month. Assuming they lose in court, on something as difficult to prove as "neglecting to secure your internet access".

Hadopi was a failure before it started. Trying to end filesharing is like going after marijuana users, it's a lost war whether you like it or not.

<comment><USER6> > Assuming they lose in court

They sure can't win in court as they're not informed that they're being judged before the judgment is passed. There is no possible defense.

> on something as difficult to prove as "neglecting to secure your internet > access"

If the Hadopi said they caught your IP, the evidence is given. They don't have to prove you neglected to secure your access, it's you who shall prove you didn't neglect it by installing a government-approved spyware on your Windows- only PC.

Personally, at the first warning I will get a VPN. The defense is simple.

<comment><USER5> >They sure can't win in court as they're not informed that they're being judged before the judgment is passed. There is no possible defense.

You seem to be misinformed about the process. I don't remember exactly what the final process is, but the fact is, you can always appeal the decision to have a real hearing.

>If the Hadopi said they caught your IP,

You can always say that your IP was spoofed, that you had a trojan on you machine, and so on... It's really really hard to prove that you didn't do your best to secure your line, and simply giving an IP harvested on a tracker isn't going to cut it.

There are several activists who downloaded a lot just to get caught, with the hope of going to court. They will get good lawyers to make sure they win, and then the decision will do "jurisprudence" (I don't know if a similar concept exist in American law), and that will be the end of it. Well, probably, I don't know the future :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> VPN providers must be making a nice buck from French users as we speak.

EDIT: and of course, the well-connected network-bulldog agencies tasked by the French Government with "policing" must have pocketed quite a bit of change as well.

<comment><USER8> With country after country heading down this path, VPNs are certainly going to become more important. At the same time, I'm concerned about the level of trust that one must put into using anyone's VPN service. After all, how long until these same countries go after the VPNs on a wide scale, for "aiding and abetting pirates", by refusing to hand over logs? Even if someone _says_ they aren't keeping logs, you don't really know until a subpoena heads their way, right?

<comment><USER7> Absolutely, see the recent HideMyAss fiasco. At the same time though, they cannot shut down VPNs nor really monitor them too much -- that would create problems for businesses, and lose votes. Also, even acting at the EU level would leave out "rogue" states; I'm sure lots of ex-soviet states would love nothing better than kickstarting a specialized IT sector. We'll eventually get the internet equivalent of XIX century "free trade ports" around China.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Theoretically, all they would ever have to do is block all file sharing connections from french ip addresses right?

The pool of peers might be smaller but I assume the connections are monitored from within france.

Or use a seed box in another country.</comment>