Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close? - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/why-are-us-presidential-elections-so-close <comment><USER3> This is what I don't like about the current zeitgeist. Things are either black or white. You are either Red or Blue. Conservative or Liberal. Democrat or Republican. Right or Left. There is no room in this political system for a pro-life atheist, or a pro-gun liberal, or an anti-war economic conservative. There's no room on the internet for a third party voter, or someone who both believes cops lives matter AND civilian lives matter, or any other middle ground. You're either a 4chan user or a Tumbler user, you're either a Hillarybot or a Trumpbot.

Reasons for this I believe include upvote/downvote trains on the internet, clickbait headlines, and networks streamlining content to cater to certain audiences. People who watch Fox news don't want to hear about Trump rape allegations, they want to watch news casters talk about Evil Hillary. It's the reverse for CNN. Remember in the Bush era how blatantly Fox news was a Republican news-horn, and how the case is the same now for CNN and Clinton?

Euck. Can't stand it. No room for moderates, your voice won't get heard if you aren't making _someone_ stamp their feet.

Ninjaedit: I mean honestly how is it possible that of the 300 million people spread across one of the largest (geographical) countries in the world and one of the most diverse populations on the world, exactly _half_ want _one_ person to represent them, and exactly _half_ want _one other person_ to represent them. It doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER4> I don't get why we don't just have a moderate party that represents the majority. Despite what the news would seem to have us believe most people are moderate, rather than one extreme or the other.

<comment><USER5> First, the two major parties are so incredibly established that third parties barely exist. So, starting a third party that can compete with the other two is near impossible.

Second, since radio and television (media) started catering towards individual interests (echo chamber) people get so wrapped up in "Hillary/Trump/Somebody is so evil!" that they _don't_ want to experiment because it could cause the person they dislike to win.

Third, nobody cares about politics. We get ~40% turnout in midterm elections, ~60% for presidential. That's pitiful. Those who vote are those who _really_ like voting--those who are engaged.

To break the stranglehold you'd need:

\- people to stop consuming sound bite media (Now This, Twitter) and tailored media (talk radio, some major news stations)

\- better civic engagement at the local level (this is _the_ most important bit)

\- better civic knowledge (the previous bullet point is predicated on this one)

\- people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo

<comment><USER6>
      people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo

I genuinely believe Bernie could have won if he stayed independent. The two political parties are owned and operated as Corporations. They can choose whoever they want to represent them. There are no laws governing their inter- party behavior. This is why non-party candidates need to be taken seriously.

<comment><USER3> I voted for Bernie, but how could he win independent if he couldn't win the Democratic primary?

<comment><USER7> Because the primary/caucus process disenfranchises the majority of the electorate.

I believe this is why the GOP produces such poor candidates in the last 20 years or so; they must pander to the hard core of the party to become a candidate, and the people that pass that test are almost always too far removed from the electorate to win the general.

This is also why we're devolving to a system of ruling families. Clinton was never the best candidate. She was the presumed candidate and the candidate preferred by the party core, so nobody was willing to challenge - <USER2> Sanders who could seriously run on ideology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A similar take on the issue in this old Slate article:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_sp...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_special/2002/10/fiftyfifty_forever.html)

Choice quote:

"But why should we expect the deadlock to be broken at all? Think of it in ... well, cheap Darwinian terms. Imagine that we have a two party system, and each party is a collection of status-seeking individuals looking for power by winning a greater "market share" of the vote. Imagine that they each have their ideological principles --one is more to the left, one more to the right -- but these principles are quite flexible in the face of imminent or repeated failure at the polls. Over time, as each party crafts its message to maximize its appeal -- and adjusts its message after each election to regain any lost share of the votes -- wouldn't one expect the system to reach a roughly 50-50 equilibrium, in which every election was a cliffhanger?"

<comment><USER9> There is no position that either party holds so strongly that they wouldn't switch immediately if it became expedient.

Which party is the 'pro-war' party? Which party is the 'pro-public healthcare' party? Which party is the 'small-government' party? Both parties have been on both sides of these lines in the last two decades.

Yes, and you can see it happening after every election. For example, as soon as gay marriage passed the 50% level of popularity, _both parties_ switched position, saying they favored it to some degree. Democrats switched faster (because of their local politics), but Republicans had a gay speaker at their convention.

One of the toughest issues used to be abortion, until democrats softened on it somewhat, and they let anti-abortion candidates into the party (which is why Bart Stupak, a democrat, held up Obamacare based on opposition to abortion).

Democrats were anti-war under Bush (but they voted for his wars anyway), and Republicans were anti-war under Clinton (but they voted for his wars anyway).

If any view on an issue is clearly a loser, no candidate will espouse that view.

<comment><USER10> > For example, as soon as gay marriage passed the 50% level of popularity, > both parties switched position, saying they favored it to some degree.

Where are you getting that from? The Republican party platform explicitly condemns gay marriage and wants to ban it federally. [0]

The fact that they're willing to accept millions from a gay Republican is hardly evidence of a changing worldview.

[0] [http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex- marriag...](http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriage- abortion-guns-wall-street/)

<comment><USER9> Read carefully what I wrote, and I don't think you will disagree with it. Some Republicans oppose gay marriage, but so did most Democrats a few years ago, including the president and the current Democratic candidate. Any movement is a change in position.

On the other hand, there are Republicans who've fought for gay rights for a while, see for example: [http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/10/opinion/the- untold-sto...](http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/10/opinion/the-untold-story- of-the-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal/)

The libertarian wing of the Republican party has favored gay rights for a long time, even if they didn't openly fight in favor of them.

If you want to see a switch like this happen again, watch marijuana legalization. Right now, most politicians oppose it, but as soon as enough polls come out showing you can win an election based on that issue, both parties will come out in favor of it more-or-less, almost immediately.

<comment><USER10> > Read carefully what I wrote, and I don't think you will disagree with it.

I don't disagree with you saying the Democrats switched position, but I 100% disagree with the notion that the Republican party is "somewhat" in favor of gay marriage. The party platform explicitly condemns the idea and calls for a complete ban on gay marriages.

I don't dispute that _some_ Republicans support gay rights, but that no more proves that the Republican party supports it than the fact that some Republicans believe the moon landing was faked means the Republican party "somewhat" believes the moon landing was faked.

In practice, what happens when a contentious issue like this gains majority support is that one major party adopts it into their platform and the other party mostly tries to stop talking about it in the general election (thereby avoiding making it an issue while still holding on to the voters who oppose it). That's what you're seeing with gay marriage now and, historically, racism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Also, Trump is not acting like a rational ice cream seller. He has not > appeared to move his policy portfolio, to the extent he has one, toward the > center. "Rational candidates end up pivoting, and trying to move as much as > they can back toward the center. But of course right now there's one > presidential candidate who's not doing that at all," Tom Vogl, a Princeton > economist, told me.

Because the "rational" policy depends on politics being 1-dimensional. Trump has refused to deal with politics that way.

The ice cream theory is how things work normally, the same way that Newtonian mechanics works normally, but when you find yourself in a situation with extreme gravity wells or high velocities, using Newtonian mechanics to solve problems can get you killed.

Everyone knows politics isn't really one-dimensional. It just ends up being treated that way in plurality voting races because mathematics enforces it, unless you want to take a big risk and upset the apple cart. When you get an opponent who can triangulate an extreme non-centrist position in multi- dimensional politics, moving to the 1-dimensional center might be fatal because of negative traits that centrism implies on certain dimensions that the other candidate has made the campaign about.

</comment><comment><USER12> 9% of American voters was all it took for Clinton and Trump to win the primaries.

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/n...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine- percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0)

The "public" debates are sponsored by a partisan non-profit that is controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. Ogliarchs do not like competition. Their tax-exempt status is being challenged in court but other lawsuits have been unsuccessful.

[http://www.shapiroarato.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/Memor...](http://www.shapiroarato.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities.pdf)

Polling requirements for other political parties are arbitrary 15%, but the media companies write the polls to exclude minor party candidates, and the major parties control the media.

Billions $USD are spent on political advertising and propaganda. The Citizens United case allows unlimited spending for political activities.

Congress does not have term limits, further consolidating power within the major parties.

Most Americans don't know or don't care that there are other options. In WA there are 7 candidates on the ballot. But in the left/right paradigm that the powers insure is the only public dialogue, there will always be a race to the middle. This explains why: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem)

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Ignoring biased media accounts of him, he's one of the few honest candidates and his platform mostly aligns with my own. Being public about this has cost me some relationships this year. I've never seen the amount of negativity and belligerance on social media. The only good thing to come of it, is I finally deleted my Facebook account.

This election has brought out the worst in us, and we will get who we deserve on November 8th.

</comment><comment><USER13> This would have been the perfect election to have a third alternative. But unfortunately, the american political system is not made for this. Time for change?

<comment><USER14> There's a "law" that describes this: Duverger's Law [1]

Pedantry follows:

First past the post is [more or less] the election system we have - you select one candidate. Candidate with plurality [that's a generalization of a majority, ie the person with the most votes even if they don't have > 50%] wins.

There are lots of alternatives, and even a ballot initiative in Maine [2] to switch to a different type of voting system known as Ranked Choice Voting.

New types of voting systems are exciting, but complexity lends itself to a poor user interface. So more sophisticated forms of voting actually depress poll #s [I'll just cite Harry talking about this ballot initiative in this podcast [3]].

If you're looking to ever have a real alternative to the big two, the path to that is convincing your local government to switch voting systems.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) [2]: [https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ...](https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_\(2016\)) [3]: [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elections-podcast- countd...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elections-podcast- countdown-11-days/)

[Edit: put scare quotes around law]

<comment><USER15> The issue of complexity is why I'd push for approval voting (i.e. you can upvote multiple candidates). [http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/](http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/) shows some of the weirdness that comes up with ranked choice voting (what I'd always heard of before as instant runoff voting). It looks even more surprising than what we have!

I've been wondering recently if California would go for a ballot initiative to change their _primaries_ to approval voting or score voting or some other reasonable improvement. Since recently the state has open primaries, meaning you might end up with a general election between two Democrats, or two Republicans, and other weirdness. I can imagine less resistance to a change here, than for the mechanism of the general election.

<comment><USER14> Majority judgment or judgment voting is interesting / more general than merely up vote + down vote.

I think the most important thing is for voters to want to experiment. And to be engaged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >The competition for votes between the Republican and Democratic parties does not lead to a clear drawing of issues, an adoption of two strongly contrasted positions between which the voter may choose. Instead, each party strives to make its platform as much like the other's as possible

Problem with that theory is, the two parties aren't close _in the slightest_. Democrats prefer expanding the social safety net, minority rights, etc. Republicans prefer... the opposite.

<comment><USER9> _Democrats prefer expanding the social safety net_

Which party had a healthcare plan in 2008? Was the 'individual mandate' a Republican or Democratic idea?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The chart at the top of this article directly opposes their own premise that presidential elections for the last 100 years have been close to 50/50.

<comment><USER18> Indeed. Apart from Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960, the two really close elections of the 20th Century involved third parties: Wallace in 1968, Nader in 2000.

<comment><USER19> I guess it's a matter of perspective. In my eyes, even the blowout of 1984 was fairly close. Mondale got over 40% of the vote, which is enough to win with a wide margin in most countries where there are more than two viable parties.

<comment><USER20> True. But if there were more than two viable parties, Mondale wouldn't have gotten 40% of the vote...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The median voter theorem isn't the whole story, not even close. In particular, it assumes that most of voters are driven by what parties say about themselves in terms of policy, which is manifestly not true. When Trump says he won't cut social security, people from deep republican states say "yeah he cares about the american people, he's with the little guy", whereas when a democrat says the same thing they go "boo he wants to social medicine, commie".

There was this study that showed when remove parties from policies, something like 90% of the population wants free health care for all, free education for all, richer people to be taxed more, not less. 90% isn't really split down the middle.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's an analysis of the problems with First Past the Post which nearly always generates a two party system: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

<comment><USER23> USA gets some slack for being more or less the first (still existing) democracy in the world. But in the modern world, First-Past-the-Post should not be considered full democracy anymore, but only some level of proto- democracy, since proportional representation systems are so much better.

It's like, democracy-wise, Americans are all still driving around in Ford T-Models.

<comment><USER24> Is there a way to have proportional representation for a single person elected office? I understand how it works in parliament or multiple person offices, but isn't there still a necessity for a direct voting mechanism when you are electing a single person?

<comment><USER23> > Is there a way to have proportional representation for a single person > elected office?

No. (Well maybe runoff voting would be a slight improvement.)

My point was that with proportional voting, you get more than two viable parties in the parliament, and thus the whole political landscape will be different. And more than two parties will be putting forward their presidential candidates, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The other dimension is turnout. With the ridiculously low turnout in US elections, the people not voting could probably elect a third candidate if they all suddenly decided to.

It seems that elections are won and lost at least as much by whose supporters bother to show up as by people switching allegiances.

</comment><comment><USER26> While the article nicely deploys undergrad political science, I don't really think that the _median_ voter theorem can possibly be true as described. The thing is, the nominal "center" around which the two-party system orbits _moves_ , on timescales of decades. If we assume both parties gravitate towards a genuinely "privileged" (in the sense that the origin point of a coordinate system is privileged) center, it shouldn't do that: the center should remain exactly where it allows the two parties to split the country down the middle and never shift.

Instead, what we observe is that our political center has been moved further and further into the Republican Party, ever since the '70s. Prior to that, during the fifth party system, the political center rested with a coalition of urban and Southern working-class Democrats.

Now in our current election, the center seems to be moving into wealthy suburbs and Silicon Valley, libertarian-lite.

The interesting question is what sort of forces move the center and alter the composition of the party-system at any given time.

<comment><USER27> > Instead, what we observe is that our political center has been moved further > and further into the Republican Party, ever since the '70s.

Perhaps in an economic sense, but hardly in a cultural sense (other than guns, is there a single Republican cultural issue which has been winning against its Democratic inverse?).

<comment><USER26> You're right: the cultural center has shifted glacially to the left over time, with erratic jumps back to the right when the Republicans actually hold supermajority power, followed by further gradual leftward drift when they lose it.

Though in an economic sense, yeah, my original point stands. And actually, it's strengthened in a way: how can we talk about the median voter theorem pushing the parties to the center if they spent the whole most recent party system both moving strongly to the right on economic issues while moving erratically but consistently to the left on social issues? That would mean there isn't even one center!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The Median Voter Theorem is too specific. Both sides don't have become as much like each as possible to compete. They can compete by taking positions on new issues progressively over a campaign to seek advantage or by reframing earlier positions.

</comment><comment><USER29> Dissonance, basically. Dissonance manifests as diametrically opposed views in society. It's also what makes reality, reality. See "this video will make you angry" on Youtube for the meme context.

</comment><comment><USER30> tldr: Article claims elections are close because the two major parties are intentionally ideologically similar.

I am not impressed by the article, which does not delve into actual party positions, reasons voters give for voting, or well-known blocks of voters, and instead gives an analogy about ice cream vendors.

<comment><USER31> Then you missed the point of the article, which is about _why_ the parties in a system like the US's can be expected to be ideologically similar, based on game-theoretic considerations.

I mean, you may have the opinion that it's a trivial or incorrect point that wasn't worth expressing, but you seem not to be aware that it's there at all.

(tl;dr: you didn't like the article because it had the temerity not to be the article you were expecting. Who knows, if one read such articles one might learn something one didn't already know!)

<comment><USER30> Well no, it's more that I thought it was completely insane to state that the Republican and Democratic parties are ideologically similar. They diverge radically on a large number of issues that voters care about. So talking about "why they become similar" is inane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Polling data is lagging, but the state department just released >300 emails.

Not unlikely U.S is source of leak not Russia. Total media blackout. NYT, Bloomberg, CNN, WaPo, ect.

538 has a 3.1 popular vote margin and in the last 24ish hours Trump has gone from 80/20 to 60/40\. Many sides manipulating information, so both amplify their candidate. Going to be very close

<comment><USER33> There is no blackout.

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails- state-...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state- department/index.html)

[http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state- dept-releases-new-batch-of-clinton-e-mails)

<comment><USER32> 0 mention of wikileaks. NYT hasn't weighed in, had to fire a staff member for feeding HRC intel. In fact, there is virtually no mention that wikileaks is actively disclosing emails. One article indicating "voters already made up their minds". I think they are both scumbags, it's just that it is absurd that NYT isn't even trying to spin, just pretending it didn't happen.

I have been getting updates via a fucking uncharged fugitive seeking asylum from my country and reading updates via RT (Russian News). I feel sick to my stomach and I am _very_ cynical.

<comment><USER33> Wait, what are you saying they are blacking out?

NYT is covering the Wikileaks emails:

[http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks](http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks)

Also, are you confusing CNN firing a commentator with the NYT? Donna Brazile was not 'a staff member' at CNN, they paid her to go on TV and babble, not as a reporter. She acted in bad faith, but she wasn't in a journalistic role.

<comment><USER32> Sorry, yes am getting them confused. Trying to figure out what is going on with little sleep and email data. I am embarassed I made those mistakes but it is also telling.

I am not contending there is a blackout-- that was an over reaction, but all major networks are barely mentioning much of the disclosures or even showing HRC in that bad of a light. If this was Gary Johnson-- who most people dont know; would ve surprised if state dept & WL werent front page.

Bloomberg, CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC are running with blatant propaganda. Just because I find HRC to be a dangerous, doeNt mean I support T.

The state dept/FBI are releasing data dumps on a former senator & secretary of state as well as pursuing her investigation of criminal activity. None of these papers allude to that scary fact, or the scarrier fact that there is a schism internally as well.

Comcerned.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Section 230 authors despair of [politicians'] aggressive ignorance - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/25/section_230_authors/ <comment><AUTHOR> Edited title to fit character limit.</comment>


Ask HN: Can my side project make money? - <AUTHOR>

I've been working on http://www.goblabble.com for the past two weeks. GoBlabble lets you instantly record and share your voice over the phone.<p>Do you think I can make any money with this? Any ideas for premium features? <comment><USER2> Yes, definitely. Lots of people need a temporary information line for event management - giving out directions to a location is a chore for everything from baby showers to rock concerts, and every person calling in is tying up one of the organizers for the same amount of time.

Bridging computer to internet is still more difficult than it should be, and people don't always have a microphone of any quality hooked up to their PC. I don't even though I own a ton of pro audio gear I'm too lazy to set up Skype. The simplicity proposition here is great.

What you need is to let people do it for free but if it gets (or will get) more than X calls in a given period, they need to pay 5c each or maybe a flat fee per hour they want the service to be up. Be aware that you could find yourself dealing with huge volume spikes if someone gives out this number as part of a commercial promotion, like thousands of calls in an hour.

Suggestions...

      Look into setting up an 800 number
      Check your phone contract so you don't go to bed one night and find yourself owing $43 million when you wake up
      Try some other names, this sounds very like 'Go Daddy' mixed with babytalk. Sorry, I'm a real name snob.

Good concept.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure how all the things your described aren't solved by a simple email or web page listing.

I'm not sure if goblabble can make money, it depends what people use it for.

<comment><USER2> Not everyone uses smartphones, not all events details are announced so far in advance they can be printed up at home. For that matter not all people have printers.. Especially for the under-30 set, people may leave home long before selecting their final destination of the evening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting idea. Congrats on building it. Think about what problem are you trying to solve? Perhaps users don't even know they have this problem until you make some something routine today 10x or 100x easier or more fun...or your service provides an entirely new way for people to communicate/connect.

Why would you yourself use this? Some use cases that might be relevant:

1) Personal notes. Record voice message on your phone and press a button to store online without the friction of dialing a number. Make it trivial to retrieve, organize and share your voice notes online.

2) Group broadcast. Make it faster and easier than group texting, especially for detailed information. Record something e.g., change of plans, post to a URL with one click and broadcast URL to recipients in your contact list.

The latter use case might be really useful for people who don't like to text...granted not your typical HN reader. Think about who might be well served by voice features with SUPER simple user experience.

Also think about non-consumer use cases too...how could companies better disseminate detailed information to employees for example? Which, if any, of these scenarios make more sense with voice features versus simply posting info online?

Solve a real problem first and make customers happy. Then think about how to charge for the value you offer. Have fun, good luck!

</comment><comment><USER5> Congrats on getting something up and running! Now the hard part...iteration.

Right now you have the feeble skeleton of what could make money. As you try and turn this into a business, don't try to just layer on premium features. For example, arbitrarily adding paid usage limits probably won't work in its current state. _Build it into a business._ Let your app grow. Stretch it and pull it in all sorts of directions until you have something people want badly enough that they'll pay--aka achieve product/market fit.

With that aside, I think you need to identify a particular use case for this technology. Is it for personal note taking? Relaying secret information to a third-party? Playing a global game of 'telephone'[1]? You can't find paying customers until you know what they'll use it for.

\-- [1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game>

</comment><comment><USER6> I can definitely think of several that are industry specific. In the industry I worked in recently, I know of people who if approached correctly would love this (with some new features..)!

Feel free to email me - email address in profile.

I think it would be easier for me to describe it to you via phone.

</comment><comment><USER7> You can prefix/postfix voice recordings with ads from advertisers... much like how they do it in the movies where they show tons of ads before a movie. It could work for you too.

</comment><comment><USER8> What are your costs? What is the marginal overhead? What is your customer acquisition cost?

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a cool idea. Love telephony stuff.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> clickable link: <http://www.goblabble.com>

</comment><comment><USER10> Nicelios - What is your email?</comment>


Ask HN: article about travelling for programmers - <AUTHOR>

a few months ago I found a link on HN to some travel advice that someone had written for programmers. In a nutshell, he was basically saying programmers should save for a few months each year and then spend the rest of the year on a tropical beach somewhere.<p>my google-fu must be weak because I can't find the original post. Does anyone have it bookmarked? <comment><USER2> Closest I found to what you describe (slow morning; needed some sort of challenge) is:

<http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/>

mentioned here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=533330>

Doesn't quite fit your description, but maybe or maybe of interest (the article or the HN thread)?</comment>


Testing in Production the Netflix Way - <AUTHOR> https://launchdarkly.com/blog/testing-in-production-the-netflix-way/ <comment><USER2> Well it's nice to have a product that when it breaks the damage done is restricted to a few misshapen cartoons and talking heads.</comment>


Ask YC: what non-top-tier college to apply for? - <AUTHOR> I'm a high-schooler and will be applying for colleges this fall.  I've slacked a bit in high school (you know, working through SICP instead of doing homework), so my GPA is neither good nor bad (4.1), while my standardized tests are a little above average, but nothing extraordinary.
I'd love to go to someplace like MIT or Caltech but these are now unrealistic aspirations (for undergrad).  I'd also love to go to a liberal arts college that does CS, like Harvey Mudd, but even if I was accepted I'm not sure I'd be able to afford it.
I know I can get an education anywhere, but I'd like to go to a school with interesting/intelligent people, or, at least, not be surrounded by apathy.  Do you have any suggestions for schools I should shoot for? <comment><USER2> I was very impressed by UT-Austin and the community there. They also have a honor's program for CS majors (Turing) that you may be able to get into with okay grades but good experience. But even if you don't get into that program, you'll still be taking classes with those folks.

Also think of the relationships between schools to get in the "back" door at places where the competition might be higher. For instance, at the Univ of Pittsburgh you can take one course every semester at Carnegie Mellon. The Pitt credits are cheaper but you get the instructors and knowledge at CMU. Of course, your degree would be from Pitt. Still, knowledge matters. I think the same is true of Tufts and MIT/Harvard.

A third option is going to a local state school and getting your grades in order to transfer after a year or two. You'll probably be in school a semester or two longer (cause all credits won't transfer), but your degree will have more of a "name" and you'll benefit from increased competition/knowledge.

EDIT: Sorry if this sounds disparaging of Pitt. I had a great experience there in a combined cogneuro Ph.D. program with CMU. But I know nothing of Pitt's CS department even as the cross-over of the communities made a lasting impression. You'd likely to have to work a bit harder to make those connections as an undergrad. But it is possible.

<comment><USER3> UT-Austin is impossible to get into if you're out-of-state. The acceptance rate for out-of-state kids is lower than Harvard's overall acceptance rate.

<comment><USER2> If this is true, I'm not sure how CS is different. One of the CS profs involved in the Turing program told me they make a real effort to bring in out-of-state kids especially because they want it to be a national program. That may also be true of the department in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't believe no one has said U of I yet - University of Illinois. Lots of top-tier coders, from Marc Andreessen to Max Levchin, went there.

However, as with the case with all the other public schools (non-CA) mentioned so far, you will pay the out-of-state tuition rate. But you'd be at a very top tier CE school, as you saw on the U.S. News list.

<comment><USER5> I went to UIUC for CS undergrad and I can attest that it is a great program. And very difficult. I graduated near the top of my high school class, but I felt very average when compared with my peers in college. There are some very, very smart people in the CS curriculum at UIUC.

Another great thing about UIUC is the diversity. It likes to present itself as an engineering college (and rightly so, top 10 in many engineering disciplines), so it attracts many students from other technical areas around the world (India, Korea, China, Japan, Russia, Bulgaria, etc.). I'm plain old whitebread, but I was the only one in my study group for several years. It was a great chance to meet people from very different backgrounds.

Lastly, they just recently (2004) constructed the Siebel Center for Computer Science which is where they hold most/all of their CS classes. A very modern, high-tech building that can make any CS major drool. Not to mention the other buildings which surround it: NCSA, Beckman Institute, and Grainger Library (will become your 2nd home)

<http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/about/siebelcenter.php>

<comment><USER6> _"... Another great thing about UIUC is the diversity ..."_

This is the mark of a good learning ecosystem. One that supports diversity. Diversity means less of your _"own kind"_. (by _"own kind"_ I mean, same geo, monetary, political peers, etc) A greater chance to use and view different ideas. This is a real problem with _"top"_ Universities who support and advertise meritocracy, but end up supporting mono-cultural ideals. This might be good if you want to pass school and work the system. It is bad if you want to succeed past school and subvert the system and become not only a good technician, practitioner (I avoid the professional lable) to become an Entrepreneur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Go after those top-tier schools.

If you're slacking off on homework working through SICP, you're probably top- tier worthy. People who go after their interests are by definition more interesting.

Don't weigh yourself on the standard metric because you're not standard. And don't let that hinder the selling of yourself in your applications. I would much rather hire a person who has started a startup before than one from a corporate environment, and I think this principal holds true for colleges as well - they would much rather accept someone who does what they're interested in and pursues things beyond the norm.

College is the first great opportunity for young people to learn how to sell. Think of yourself as a package - what differentiates you and makes you special? Then, arrange your application that way. It's foolish to put your SAT scores and grades up front as your flagship 'feature' that differentiates you from others, even if you've aced them. Take some time arranging your application centered around your strengths and things that you're proud of, and make them want to have you, or regret it every night for rejecting you.

Again, go after those top-tier schools - being rejected is not as bad as regretting not applying to them.

<comment><USER8> >It's foolish to put your SAT scores and grades up front as your flagship 'feature' that differentiates you from others, even if you've aced them.

I'm curious, have you ever known any smart, successful people that couldn't do well on the SAT?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Public universities are not bad. I did my time in Univ of Washington and Utah State University, and I definitely feel like I got my money's worth.

A warning, though. UW's proximity to MS and the other tech companies made the department really exclusive for undergrads while I was there. I majored in something besides CS, then did my master's in CS later. You'll want to learn about what the department's standards are (eg, competitive admission for starters) so you know what you have to do to get in.

I recommend you email or call the department secretaries and ask for some information and a hookup with a current student. Assuming the secretary and the student are helpful, you'll learn a lot about what you need to know.

OT, apply for scholarships like crazy. Don't make my mistake.

<comment><USER10> UW and Utah State both have great undergrad CS programs, and they produce lots of solid OSS projects, which could help your visibility a lot when you're applying for jobs _after_ college.

I'm going to have to make my usual plug for my home state (Oregon) here, too, and suggest that the OP look at both Oregon State University, in Corvallis, and Portland State University, in Portland.

Neither is "world-class" for CS, but they both have solid software engineering and math programs, produce a lot of open source, and have good connections to the tech employers in the region. Plus, western Oregon (and Portland especially) is a pretty damn nice place to live.

<comment><USER11> I'd just like to point out that, if you have any interest in genetic algorithms, Dr. Melanie Mitchell is one of the professors at Portland State University and she pretty much wrote the book on GA's (see here: [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262631857/qid...](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262631857/qid=1079374680/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-2986580-3109461?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Have you considered the University of Waterloo? Its in Canada, but its highly regarded by companies like Google, Microsoft, etc. Tuition may be cheaper as well.

<comment><USER13> Voted you up. Something else to consider when applying to Waterloo is the ridiculously high male to female ratio. If applying to Waterloo I'd recommend trying to take some shared credit courses with Wilfred Laurier students across the street.

(Not sure if CS and Eng allow that, you might have to complain a bit)

<comment><USER12> Not to mention the fact that the legal drinking age in Ontario is 19.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you're certain you want to major in engineering or CS. I've read really good things about Olin (<http://olin.edu>) If I were applying to colleges now, I'd apply there.

<http://wsjclassroom.com/teen/teencenter/05dec_olin.htm> <http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may06/3432>

<comment><USER15> When I applied there, I was told they only offered computer engineering courses, not computer science. That was before they had actually opened the school, though, so maybe that's changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> All I can say is, make a list of places and go visit.

I ended up at a (very) small private school about 400mi away. When I visited, the head of the CS department talked with me in his office for over an hour. From that conversation, I learned:

A) He is completely brilliant and extremely competent

B) He teaches about half of the upper-level CS courses

C) His dissertation was in an area that strongly interested me

After that it was a no-brainer. Obviously, going to a smaller, lesser-known school, I don't stand out as much on a resume. But at the "good companies", it matters more what you've done with your spare time than where you went to school.

Turns out other competent people also followed my line of reasoning. My first year there, I found two cofounders for a startup. So not only do I have a good mentor (at least as far as the tech part goes), but we all get some leeway on assignments if we were up until 1am adding a new feature to our codebase.

<comment><USER17> > He teaches about half of the upper-level CS courses

Wow, how many upper-level courses were there? Even teaching 2 courses in a semester is considered a lot for most professors'.

<comment><USER16> You have to remember,

A) it's a small school

B) he enjoys teaching

I really didn't like the attitude of the larger schools where they would have an associate professor who teaches CS1 talk to you about computer games. I realize that profs like him are unusual. That's why I chose the school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It can't hurt to try for some top schools. There must be some admissions officers who can distinguish between people who are smart and those who merely get good grades. If you're smart, spots at top schools rightfully belong to you, so at least take a shot at claiming what's yours.

Write your application essay about what you worked on instead of classwork and standardized tests.

<comment><USER19> The problem is that in the real world if the admissions officers admit people who are smart and didn't merely get good grades, the school's US News & World Report rank drops and the university president has all the admissions officers fired so that the board doesn't fire him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What state are you in? Most states have at least one good public university, and these are generally fairly easy to get into and fairly cheap (if you're from in-state).

If there's not a good one in your state, try one in a nearby state. It'll be more expensive and harder to get into, but still generally cheaper/easier than a private school. I can personally recommend UNC-Chapel Hill (nice campus, small town, good mix of social+intellectual life) and Georgia Tech (great CS professors and students, although poor social life).

Also, as others have said, definitely seek out and apply for as many scholarships as you can. There are plenty available and you're almost guaranteed one if you apply to several. Especially focus on scholarships which are special to your situation (minority, athletics, service, etc).

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm in California, so Berkeley is an obvious option.

<comment><USER21> If you're in California, definitely take a hard look at the UCs: in-state tuition is very reasonable, and the schools are among the best on the country for CS. Generally, the highest ranking UCs are: Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UCSB. All four of those schools tend to be in the top 30 for CS.

Also don't forget PG's thoughts on elite institutions: <http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Option #1) Go to a junior college, do your best and transfer to a real school. (EDIT: In Cali, your grades will count as full "university" grades, so a 3.5 GPA will be taken as a true 3.5 university GPA when transferring)

Option #2) Simply try to get it the best school possible, top tier or not.

If you aim low, guess what? You're gonna have low results.

There are universities that exist to privide workers for the economy (ie, ITT tech). These schools just fill the vacant seats as currently required by the industry and don't teach you much that requires brains, or that will be required X years from now. These schools typically teach you the current popular programming languages and stuff like that. People like to call these "hands on," but it really means "no theory."

"Better" schools provide thinkers to the economy. These schools teach you principles and will make you study Scheme/LISP and implement quicksort and other algorithms like that. These schools want to teach you principles that you can apply to any language. You learn specific useful languages mostly on your own time. They might adopt something like C++/Java/etc as a "core" language, but the emphasis is always on the algorithm, not the language.

Sooo.... The choice is yours... Where do you want to study? What people do you want to surround yourself with?

You still have time, make a good choice.

EDIT: I see you live in Cali.... I stress option #1 above, that's the route I took. To put the two kinds of universities I talk about above, compare UC (University of California) system versus the California State University system. Why are there more CalState universities than UC? Because more labor is needed than brains, and more people just want to get out and work rather than think and go on to bigger things. Do your research.

<comment><USER23> The junior college route can work well. I went to Orange Coast College for 1.5 years and then transferred to Stanford. Many of my friends transferred to Berkeley. There are some really good instructors at junior colleges here in California. You'll have to do your research to find out which ones they are, but when you do, they will often take a personal interest in your success. You'll save a ton of money, get the education you deserve (read this again), and leave with a nice brand name on your resume. Highly recommended.

The only downside is that most of the value of college isn't the classes or even the professors, but the relationships and friendships you form with your student peers. It's tougher to find people you'd want to be friends with at a junior college, and when you transfer, you'll have to start all over again. But it worked out fine for me.

Fred

<comment><USER22> No kiddin'? I wen to OCC as well! It's a good school... I was pre-med and comp sci back then, the quality of the courses was very high at OCC, it prepared me well for later opportunities.

There is a theory that community/junior colleges offer higher quality of education for the first two years because that is all they do. Certainly at OCC that seemed to hold true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm confused by this entire thread.

1\. Where are you based? 4.1 weighted is a very very high GPA in California's 4.0 scale.

2\. What's your SAT scores? That's more indicative of where you will be accepted than just the GPA.

</comment><comment><USER25> Try Georgia Tech, you might be surprised that it's not terribly hard to get into.

warning: not many girls here

<comment><USER26> Georgia Tech is a great school for Computer Science (they model their program after the best of the top-tier schools) and will IMO give you a much stronger foundation than a liberal arts school with a CS program.

I spent a year at MIT and transferred to Georgia Tech and I don't regret it in the least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Completely off base here, but um I think it's still relevant for anyone who ends up down in the dumps and just wants to go to school no matter what:

DO NOT GO TO ITT TECH.

<comment><USER12> Bad experience?

<comment><USER27> Horrible experience.

\- Staff with the exception of program chairs was always people who work entry level jobs in your industry, and have no idea how to teach the subject matter, or in some cases even interact with students

\- The administrative process was nearly impossible for every aspect of your academic career. While tending to family matters, I got absolutely no respect in regards to emergencies or crises

\- Education? Let me put it this way, after dropping out and getting to work on my Startup, ITT Tech seemingly had an innumerable amount of students who were willing to work, but because I knew the quality of information was terrible, I wouldn't hire a single one of them. Text books are published by an ITT Contracted company and is almost always filled with erroneous, and inaccurate information. Even the labs are awful. Operating systems, for example: we got to Linux. All we did was gather around a computer screen, the teacher went "THis is linux, this is what the terminal looks like" and that was as useful as it got.

\- Career services? The career services department probably has my resume memorized, and while I knew, and the IT administrator knew I was more qualified than every student currently attending the school, Career Services was always sending me to Best Buy and Circuit City for "jobs".

\- Then there was the whole thing with my buddy Chris. Around my 3rd full semester there, I was in the student lounge with Chris when a guy walked in wanting to inquire about getting admitted.

Chris "You want to go to school here?" Guy "Yes" Chris "Don't"

That little action caught the attention of the dean who refused to let him graduate on that alone, as a result his tuition skyrocketed because he couldn't take the classes if he was on academic probation, yet he was still registered for them (as you are automatically registered for classes, you can take no elective courses even if you pay foor them). He is currently filing a lawsuit against the school.

Want me to go on? I will. Way overpriced, way overhyped by their marketing crews, this place needs to be DESTROYED.

<comment><USER28> why would you attend a school that advertises on TV?

<comment><USER29> Although I agree that its foolish, every major school that competes in nationally televised sports has a commercial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Try Brigham Young University, in Provo, Utah. They've got a competitive (if not top-tier) CS program, fantastic library, beautiful campus, and tuition is 20% of what you'd pay at other private schools.

Warning: not a party school

<comment><USER31> I spent time at BYU and the University of Utah and I thought the U of U had a much more solid CS program. The U has a long history in the field. It is also where I was introduced to lisp, bigO notation, and algorithm analysis. BYU was more Java oriented. Of course that was many years ago so take it for what it's worth.

<comment><USER32> Reminds me of University of Utah's famous alumni... Adobe, WordPerfect, Pixar co-founders...

<http://www.cs.utah.edu/dept/history/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> My grades were rather bad in highschool as well (B minus average). I had great experience with science fairs. (state level science fairs can be a great way to earn money for college) and building robots and such. If your going to not have the best grades, you had better have some pretty amazing results with the free time spent not studying.

I (somehow) got into Rensselear Polytechnic (www.rpi.edu) and loved every second of it. I have always been impressed that they looked beyond my grades.

I had far more hands on experience as an undergrad than my friends who went to MIT, and met like minded people who also wanted to start a company after graduating college. RPI created the first 'incubator' in the US, and are very involved in getting technology from the labs into growing businesses.

When I graduated (1997) I won RPI's $20k business plan contest with a friend of mine, giving RPI a small stake in our company. We then raised more money from small upstate NY VC firms who got their funding from insurance companies who received major tax breaks from New York State to help stimulate the upstate NY economy.

While startups were begging to blow their investment money on crazy rents in SF and San Jose we were in Troy, NY surviving by having an incredibly low run rate. And I can safely say that all of this stemmed from the support we got from RPI.

Find the school that promotes all the companies started by their alumni. Contact some of these graduates who have started companies. Ask them how their experience was. (i.e. if you were looking to get a job, you would ask alumni who graduated how their career service department was)

<comment><USER34> Troy, the city RPI is in, is a really unique place. Most people would call it a dump, but I found it pretty darn awesome. As James Kunstler put it: "The late 20th century bypassed it so completely that it evaded the kind of false urban renewal that left so many other towns wrecked."

If you walk around downtown you can be go from a modern ghetto to a '20s boom town and back again in 5 minutes. The mix is surreal and I've never been anywhere else like it.

I'm glad after graduating I ended up in Boston, another city that has an amazing amount of preserved history. Otherwise, I'd be missing Troy a little too much.

p.s. This talk by James Kunstler is awesome: <http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121> "Technosis externality clusterfuck" hah

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The SUNY (State University of New York) schools are great. There's pretty much a SUNY school that will cover you at most GPA-levels. Look at SUNY Geneseo (2 girls per guy!), SUNY Albany, Buffalo, and Binghamton for the best in the system, but there are easier-to-get-into schools there, too. If you're not going to MIT, or an IVY, I think very few other schools offer a return on investment that is comparable to a good state school.

</comment><comment><USER36> You can take a look at Cornell. The grade criteria is not as struct as MIT/Caltech but the CS program is considered one of the best in the US.

<comment><USER37> I second that, although I am a Cornell grad so I am biased :)

Cornell also accepts a huge amount of transfers. It's somewhere around 20-30% when I was there.

But be aware of the stats on sites like US News. The engineering school is much more competitive to get in.

<comment><USER19> You can always apply to another easier-to-get-into program within Cornell and then transfer into the engineering school. You just need a 3.0 your freshman year. You can even take all engineering courses before you transfer if you want to, not that I'd recommend it if you're trying to get a good GPA. (Also a Cornell grad.)

<comment><USER38> I'd recommend against that. A friend of mine did that, and its a huge pain in the ass. Just apply to the engineering school directly. They hold you to a pretty tough requirement to switch colleges, which puts a lot of stress on your first couple semesters.

<comment><USER19> I would recommend it only if you commit to taking the hard classes over the summer before your frosh year. Otherwise I agree with your analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A lot of schools have a guaranteed transfer program. For example anyone can get into one of the second tier Wisconsin schools just by applying, and then if you get above a 3.0 you can transfer into Madison.

<comment><USER39> I went to Madison and it was great. I think it all depends on what state you're in, but many states have great "second-tier" schools that offer cheaper tuition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> If you're interested in Math, I can recommend Rutgers - the math dept, esp. the honors track, is as good as any Ivy. The CS dept. is good, too, esp. if you're interested in the subject.

I would imagine any major public research university having the same ...

</comment><comment><USER41> According to a study by the ACM in 2007, ([http://nirmalthacker.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/acm- rankings-f...](http://nirmalthacker.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/acm-rankings-for- graduate-cs-programs/)) University of Maryland is a great program. I'm definitely biased since I went to school there, they were ranked 11th in computer science when I attended and have consistently ranked high since then. They have a great BS-MS combined program that I highly recommend. <http://www.cs.umd.edu/>

</comment><comment><USER42> Are we really at the point where the only schools that count as "top-tier" are MIT and Caltech now? I can't believe people here are talking about Berkeley like it's some sort of a fallback option.

Look at [http://grad- schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/com/s...](http://grad- schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/com/search)

Sure it's for graduate schools, but I have to imagine that it tracks pretty close. In my experience, most of the programs there in the top 20 are all pretty comparable.

(FYI, University of Michigan, loved it)

</comment><comment><USER43> The honors program at your local state school is probably an extremely good choice. It will be affordable and you will likely get access to the resources of a big university together with a smaller community of students who are motivated to be in college and faculty who are more engaged in teaching.

Paying out of state tuition to a state school quickly becomes as expensive as going to a private college once financial aid it taken into account. There are blocks of states with reciprocity agreements where you can go to another state college for near-in-state tuition. Compare the honors programs and CS curricula of those colleges.

Do the classes and requirements sound interesting and challenging to you? If so, they probably to do other students who are like you. Does the college have a program for getting undergraduate students involved in research? This is another way to surround yourself with other students who are motivated to get a good education. Look at the university's research labs and institutes in other fields as well; There are always professors in other fields who desperately need computer help.

</comment><comment><USER44> I would highly recommend Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for a computer science curriculum. The location is beautiful plus the education is top notch. There is no graduate program so even though the school has 20,000 students, classes never get over 40 people.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Polytechnic_State_University)

</comment><comment><USER45> Northeastern. The CS department is good, but co-op is better. I'm just finishing my first co-op and my marketable skills (the kind of things I'd put on a CV) have exploded. I don't have the time to go into full detail about the virtues of co-op, but I'll say this: it is the single best thing I have EVER done for myself, followed closely by quitting smoking and re-discovering exercising.

<comment><USER46> As a CS northeastern Alum (who didn't do co-op), I can say that the students there have a chance to taste the "real world" - and the alternation between co-op and school keeps knowledge of the applied and theoretical fresh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Missouri University of Science & Technology (formerly known as the University of Missouri at Rolla, and before that the Missouri School of Mines) is a great engineering school. It's very affordable, the engineering and science graduates pretty much all make above the national average starting salary. A lot of career engineers came from there and have made it good at Boeing, LockMart, Raytheon, etc in aerospace and defense sectors for example.

It also has a huge number of engineering degrees to choose from, and some of them are very unique. It was the first to offer a minor in Explosives Engineering in the country. Their Student design teams regularly win most of the undergrad engineering design competitions in the country (and a few notable world events).

The downside is it's like being on a pirate ship. It's hard work, bad food, and no women. It's worth it though. Most fun I ever had in my life.

The site is mst.edu <\- check it out.

<comment><USER47> Forgot to mention: 1) It's super affordable. 2) Has many notable alumni (one good example is Tom Akers (Colonel, USAF, Ret.) was my bro's advisor in mathematics and holds the record for stick time on the space shuttle, broke the record for spacewalk duration, then broke it again the next day, flew on the HST repair mission, etc.) 3) Huge emphasis on undergrad education, and undergrad R&D work. 4) Recently started a program to bring big business engineering into the area (Rolla is a rural setting). A Jet engine manufacturer is setting up a facility there now. 5) You can get NRC licensed to operate a real nuclear reactor.

That's just of the top of my head. There's plenty more where that came from.

<comment><USER48> I visited Rolla (errr....S&T) a year ago for an admissions event, and was impressed by the CS program as it was presented to me by one brilliant, enthusiastic assistant professor. I then went home and reflected on the impression I got from the rest of the school, and it was not so rosy.

Big-O notation is taught at S&T in the Data Structures II class, which they recommend taking as a sophomore. I welcome anything that would tell me otherwise (I would like to feel better about my backup school -- 'twould ease the nightmares of universal rejection), but, until then, I'll consider that a microcosm reflective of an overall slow pace.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Rochester Institute of Technology

Pros: Lots of things that are brand new, solid CS and engineering departments, academically diverse campus, strong industry partnerships, growing entrepreneurial community, co-op work graduation requirement for most majors.

Cons: No girls, weather, pricey, nerdy

<comment><USER50> I second a vote for RIT (recent grad). kynikos is spot on with the pros / cons. If you can stand the negatives you'll end up with a great degree and a name people recognize in industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I go to Colgate University. The CS Program is good, not the best, but it is a liberal arts college and the people there are really interesting and smart and a lot of fun. The professors are the best part. I've eaten dinner at at least four of my professors homes with their families and see them all the time downtown and walking around the campus. My largest class so far has been 18 kids. Hit me up (my username @ students.colgate.edu) if you have any questions...love to help!

</comment><comment><USER52> What state do you live in? If you're in California, a good option would be community college for two years and then transfer to UC of your choice (Berkeley is on par with MIT as far as EE/CS goes). I am sure your state has excellent universities and similar programs.

I'd say any university in the UC system is an excellent bet, as is University of Washington, U Michigan, UMN Twin Cities, etc. You'd get an excellent CS/EE education any one of those places.

</comment><comment><USER13> Stanford, do whatever it takes to get into Stanford.

</comment><comment><USER53> University of Washington in Seattle University of Maryland in DC University of Texas in Austin

3 top-tier programs at public schools.

</comment><comment><USER54> What is your unweighted GPA on a 4.0 scale? College Admissions officials unweight GPAs before they even look at the other number. Some schools use a 6.0 scale!

Make sure to fill out a FAFSA as soon as possible and don't not apply to private schools just because they are expensive. Financial aid can be surprisingly generous.

</comment><comment><USER29> Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about affording school just yet. A lot of schools offer significant financial aid packages, and there are plenty of scholarships available.

Take it one step at a time. Figure out where you want to go, get in, and then figure out how you can afford it.

</comment><comment><USER55> Not that this should be the determining factor, but with which state do you have residency? If you're concerned about costs someone may be able to recommend a good school you could get into and still have in-state rates the first 1-2 years.

</comment><comment><USER56> Study abroad, for example here at the ETH Zurich. If you are good, there won't be a problem to do your master at one of the top US universities, or at least do an excahnge year there or a master thesis. But you must understand german ;)

</comment><comment><USER57> Definitly _not_ ASU. It has a really crappy computer science program. I have yet to get an English-speaking professor for a CS class. It's also obvious that they don't care about anything but money and racial diversity.

</comment><comment><USER58> Where do you live? That will change the answers a bit. Having done a year where you need to get on a plane to get to school and back, it is generally not worth it unless the program at the other end is awesome.

</comment><comment><USER59> UC Berkeley (myvote) and Stanford are awesome school with startup culture. Must note: They are rivals, so if you are deciding between them, take your time.

Also: Your scores are good, good enough for berkeley I think.

</comment><comment><USER60> Cascadia Community College (in Seattle, Washington).

[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0709.careycas...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0709.careycascadia.html)

</comment><comment><USER61> Go ahead and apply to HMC. If you're accepted they may be able to come up with enough financial aid to make it work. I didn't pay the full retail price.

</comment><comment><USER62> Of course try UC Berkeley. It's a bit of a crapshoot - I know people who have gotten into MIT and rejected from Berkeley but also the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER63> I think we can all agree the University of Wisconsin si the best. No need to debate, we can shut down the comments now..

No seriously, great people, great town. :)

</comment><comment><USER64> hot off the press, came out today

[http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/eng/c...](http://grad- schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/eng/comp)

i think if you buy the mag, there's rankings for more than 10 schools. And i vaguely remember another ranking for best values in education, places like Rose-Hulman, Cooper-Union,

</comment><comment><USER65> ASU (Arizona State University). Good party school, lots of hot chicks, and code

<comment><USER66> Too bad it's an awful school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Seems if your GPA is 4.1 with 4.0 being the highest you can take your pick of where you want to go and they'll probably pay for you, too.

</comment><comment><USER68> Rutgers

</comment><comment><USER69> FYI Harvey Mudd is very selective. Don't assume it's easier to get into than Caltech.</comment>


A very short history of data science (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2013/05/28/a-very-short-history-of-data-science/ <comment><USER2> Favorite quotes:

"…the benefit to the data analyst has been limited, because the knowledge among computer scientists about how to think of and approach the analysis of data is limited, just as the knowledge of computing environments by statisticians is limited. A merger of knowledge bases would produce a powerful force for innovation. This suggests that statisticians should look to computing for knowledge today just as data science looked to mathematics in the past. … departments of data science should contain faculty members who devote their careers to advances in computing with data and who form partnership with computer scientists."

2001 Leo Breiman publishes "Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures" (PDF): "There are two cultures in the use of statistical modeling to reach conclusions from data. One assumes that the data are generated by a given stochastic data model. The other uses algorithmic models and treats the data mechanism as unknown. The statistical community has been committed to the almost exclusive use of data models. This commitment has led to irrelevant theory, questionable conclusions, and has kept statisticians from working on a large range of interesting current problems. Algorithmic modeling, both in theory and practice, has developed rapidly in fields outside statistics.</comment>


Modern software development is cancer - <AUTHOR> http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/software-development-cancer.html <comment><USER2> I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and say this article is designed to be from the point of view of the user and to imply that you simply shouldn't get carried away with new systems, because they don't provide _inherant_ value.

However, the author doesn't write that clearly (except maybe right at the end), and instead comes across as "I don't get the value of this, so I'm going to claim it has none." PulseAudio gave me a ton - individual volument control for aplications, routing different devices to different applications easily, routing audio over a network, etc... Likewise, most of the examples provide some value. Everyone just has hatred for it because Ubuntu rolled it out too early when it was still not very stable, and people still remember it as this buggy problematic thing, even though it's been rock-solid for years, in my experience.

The Firefox example is the most stupid - they are moving to a shared standard with other browers precicely to get away from the issue of every browser having their own standard.

To me, this just reads as another "Wah, things are changing and I want everything to stay the same". Suck it up. Yes, often developers make or use new things just because we like learning and exploring. That doesn't mean new things can't do something it would be excessively hard to do in the old thing. It's about weighing up the cost/reward.

Again, I'm probably being too hard on the article - it does kind of make this point at the end, but in my opinion ends up making the point of "fear new!" instead of the more nuanced point of "address the cost to your user of using something new before using it" that I _think_ it's actually trying to make.

<comment><USER3> You're not being too hard on the article. The hatred for Wayland is especially pointless. The author claims that Wayland "has nothing to do with the vast industry out there" because servers don't run graphically, completely ignorant of the embedded Linux market (where the "monitor + keyboard + mouse" X paradigm is most broken) and other major driving forces behind Wayland.

Yes modern software libraries are inconvenient because they change a lot and constantly break. But that's not a new thing, it's been a problem as long as software libraries have existed.

<comment><USER4> Off topic but I'm really not sure what wayland is supposed to give me that I don't already have? Do you have some insights here?

Personally, my Linux laptop is finally rock solid graphically after a decade of pain and the idea of replacing a stack that took so long to mature is unappealing to me in the extreme.

<comment><USER2> From what I gather (and I'm no expert) the value of Wayland is that it is a model that matches what we are actually doing with our systems now.

X is a giant system that we abuse a tiny portion of to use in a way no one planned for it to get used - X was designed when the assumption was that you'd be a thin client on the end of a mainframe, which clearly doesn't map well to modern usage.

X, for example, allows any window to look at the contents of other windows. Useful for you screenshot program, security flaw for most applications.

Backwards compatibility has obvious benefits, but at the same time, there comes a point at which you are dragging around so much cruft no one is really using any more it's better to throw it away. The author seems to think X isn't beyond that line (or, as the article paints it - anything he uses is), but from what I've seen, Wayland seems like a smart idea.

Also, there is a compatability layer which means that most things should just work (except, as hinted at above, things like screenshot applications, which is an intentional break as that should require more privilages).

<comment><USER4> Well, I still don't get it... How I'm using my system now works perfectly, finally, and I'm sure I probably fit into the 'modern usage' bracket (hidpi, multiple monitors, USB-c projectors etc)...

That security improvement would be good, surely we can add this to X though?

Adding that bit of security isn't enough to sell me on replacing such an entrenched bit of our daily lives -- for me at least..

We are stable and it's pretty and fast enough. Progress is always good, but it has to bring something to the table other than a transparent replacement of what we already have with new code. How many million hours has X run this month?

I sound so uncool to myself here, I really like shiny new tech but fucking with something so important for reasons that no one really seems to agree on seems like a bad move to me.

Maybe someone else has some justification for is that we're missing and can enlighten us?

<comment><USER2> Sure, but there is cost to maintaining X. If Wayland is smaller and can achieve the same thing more effectively (more secure, faster, better features for contained applications, etc...), then that is preferable.

Yes, there is a cost to you, as a user, in switching. The benefits of Wayland don't really filter to you as a user in a perceivable way, but if it means that the applications you use are developed more quickly and end up being more efficient and secure, that's a benefit. The reality is that Wayland will be something you use, eventually, because people will support it (because it's better for them to target than X), and so eventually you will need it for something you want to use.

That's why I call it a trade off. Right now, would I develop an application only on Wayland? Probably not. In the future, that'll shift and eventually tip - at some point the cost of developing on X will simply be that much higher it won't be worth it.

I understand users being risk-adverse and not wanting to change, but the argument of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" has historically always lost in the end. It's rare for a system to have no room for improvement, and X is definitely not such a system.

As to, why not do it in X - because X _does_ want to be backwards compatible and stable for it's users. Secuity that breaks fundamental capabilities applications expect can't maintain that. Ripping out the cruft breaks existing stuff. Wayland aims to replace or remove 99% of X, so why work from a basis you are going to use essentially none of?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here is what i think is a more balanced view - software devs now have more say/power because they are valuable/rare. More people are working on more complex software, which means a dev background becomes more important to effectively plan/manage it. They are using the power to direct resources to things they care about that were neglected in the past - one of them is surely software quality, because in a "product-driven" company, managers don't care about technical debt and will whip you to work on a shitty codebase regardless of how demotivating it is.

In many cases being more dev-driven has saved time and money for the business in the long run. Even if that didnt happen sometimes, you know what, devs are people too and given the chance to improve their working conditions, they did. I'm personally pretty fucking happy about that.

<comment><AUTHOR> i agree with you, but in the fact that fedora uses a experimental software(wayland) is not user friendly

<comment><USER6> Wayland works pretty well now, it's just lacking software support. And even that's not much of a problem, because you can run X clients inside it with XWayland.

It is not strictly "experimental software" at this point.

Also, Fedora is the "bleeding edge" distribution of Red Hat and is purposefully usen as testing bed for new features, like in this case Wayland.

So if you're using Fedora and don't like Wayland, systemd and other such "experimental software", maybe you should stop using Fedora.

(That's not to say I like Red Hat or what it is doing to the Linux community by forcefully pushing whatever they want to be the default on every Linux distro out there.)

<comment><USER7> Does Red Hat force Arch or Ubuntu to use systemd or Wayland?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > They will destroy the old framework, put in place a new and undefined one, > 99% of all extensions will die, and even more people will abandon the > browser, because add-ons are the chief reason why people stick with Firefox.

The WebExtension API is "undefined"?

1\. [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add- ons/WebExtensions](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions) 2\. [https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/api_index](https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/api_index) 3\. [https://arewewebextensionsyet.com/](https://arewewebextensionsyet.com/)

To name a few sources.

</comment><comment><USER9> Alain Ducasse recommends allowing a hot take fresh off the pan to cool for half as long as it's been cooked, so I guess I'll open this back up in about two and a half minutes.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not a fan of the "X is cancer" framing.

The valid point buried in all this is that software seems to have a shark-like nature; it's either moving forward or "dead". There is a lot of change for the sake of change, and everyone who's got comfortable in a niche _really hates_ forced change.

This is understandable in paid software when you only get paid for new features. It's less obvious in Free software unless you really do consider reputation-as-currency.

</comment><comment><USER11> In a similar vein to "focus on one db and truly exploid its features" (vs an orm); I think targeting a systemd-aimed architecture/deployment can actually be quite neat and powerful.

(I don't use it on desktop, but server based it can be quite neat (imo/ime) :-) )

Being that, for some situations, I truly do believe systemd is better than old school init (I think similar for s6/runit/etc too (ie they're better than sysvinit))

</comment><comment><USER12> That supposed block diagram of systemd is taken from the Wikipedia article on systemd, where for the past two and a bit years there has been an explanation that _it is not a block diagram of systemd_.

</comment><comment><USER13> Calling out some obvious real world issues there, but also kinda shitting all over some good ideas and innovations that have improved things, like containers.

A better title would be "The Mother Of All Moans"

Zzzzz

</comment><comment> Digit-Al Does anyone else find it ironic that the author finishes with "I'm paying, I'm the boss" when all of his examples apart from Windows are free?

</comment><comment><USER14> Why is he ripping on tabs on top? Seems like a bizarre point to make in an otherwise sound argument.

<comment><USER15> Yeah would've been better to at least understand why these are supposed to be so awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This articulates a lot of what I've felt in recent years.

Here's this syntactically ugly new feature that allows you to save a few lines of code and obfuscates meaning from lesser mortals!

Hey let's dispense with those tired old curly brackets and use indentation instead!

Let's make a simple scripting language, and then extend it so that it becomes as complex and indecipherable as C++!

Hey wouldn't it be a great idea to have a server that runs JavaScript!

Try staying up to date when you have to work with a complex suite that tries to run everywhere and jumps on every passing bandwagon. You will then understand why the 'stuff changes, suck it up' argument isn't always valid. At times these days I try to get something done and discover the tools I have at my disposal are just poorly written crap on top of incompatible crap on top of indecipherable crap.

No I don't want to use your stupid Jupyter notebook! Just give me the frigging source and a readme!

So much stupid and unnecessary complication. I wish I'd just learnt C.

<comment><USER16> I don't understand your point at all. Python has been around since the early 90s, and it's purpose was to make development faster. That has a tangible benefit to consumers: Applications get developed significantly faster. C is powerful, it's also incredibly slow to prototype with.

> Hey wouldn't it be a great idea to have a server that runs JavaScript!

Who cares?

> So much stupid and unnecessary complication. I wish I'd just learnt C.

Oh the irony...

<comment><USER15> Change for changes' sake is partly what frustrates me. Indents are such a stupid idea IMHO. What was wrong with curly braces?! Certainly Python sticks out in this regard. I also think Python has evolved beyond its initial premise to the point where it has acquired many of the features it was trying to escape from at its inception. When I see all the ugly cruft in the average large Python app/library I start to question.

As a developer I care about these things when they pollute my work with their crappiness.. Be that in concept or execution.

I'm well aware of C's limitations. My point is that the types of environments in which C prevails are perhaps a little less prone to the latest trendy fad.

<comment><USER17> Do you indent your code when you use braces?

        this {
            foo: bar;
        }

If so - how is scanning for {} any different than scanning for indentation level?

        this
            foo: bar;

You'd have a valid point if you wrote code as thus:

        this {
        foo: bar;
        }

or

        this
        {
        foo: bar;
        }

If you're using indentation and curly braces - one of the two isn't _necessary_. In my opinion, indentation alone is more scannable for code blocks than curly braces alone. If I were to drop one - it would be curly braces.

I don't find Python all that difficult to read - and I primarily deal with Javascript and C#.

<comment><USER15> I prefer the last.

Partly it's not being able to just drop a brace in the right place to make something compile when hacking that bothers me - ohh no, in Python you have to make sure every damn block is aligned correctly.. For a quick and dirty scripting language it sure is pedantic!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Regarding systemd: I guess I like the systemctl commandline interface, I wasnt around for the alternatives. (if there were any?) I like that part of systemd. I like the fairly easy to write service files. I'm not sure how it relates to booting an OS though.

Regarding programming languages: I think we absolutely need better programming languages, they are all still a joke to me. Rust sounded like the perfect language but then we all know what happened, same as c++. Personally I'm always surprised when somebody makes a new language and doesn't include a debugger or intellisense. It must be only me but it just shows a general disrespect or unawareness for me, the user you want to attract. You actually expect me to be productive with your language without them? C'mon.

> Essentially, people who write code are just glorified digital welders

Yep, that's actually what I think as well. Most programmers just don't think about the higher end goal, usability in the greater context of the OS or interaction design, simplicity, or even whether alternatives exist. They just see a job to do and they do it - often badly actually.

Honestly, it's not just about software development though but that's what I know best. E.g the first Apple iPhone comes to mind: Finally a product that was truly just _good_. In basically every single way, designed for the user. It was beautiful. Github comes to mind, it just worked. Immediately and it solved a need. Before we had sourceforge. Facebook was similar in my opinion, although the situation is more complex there.

> What should have been done - whip the developers into submission, force them > to create a backward-compatible framework that supports everything, and make > backend changes that do not affect the user in any way. That's how product- > driven development is done

Haha, somebody speaks from experience. Yeah that's actually how it is done in enterprise development in my limited experience. You just have to be backwards compatible, end of story. Don't care how it's done, just do it.

> Why did smartphones succeed? Because they allowed a common person to do the > same things they did on the PC cheaper and faster

Yep, and also because it allowed the common person to be connected while not having to sit hunched over at a PC. The internet and the PC are clearly great things but people want to live their lives _and_ be connected. With smartphones they get to have both. Personally I will never agree with these weird "wow look at how sad all those people are, staring at their smartphones". I remind myself of the pictures of people in the 1900s where everyone at the train station was hunched over their newspapers.

<comment><USER19> > then we all know what happened

What happened?

<comment><USER20> I think the parent implied that it got quite complex, like c++, and he doesn't like the complexity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Any other opinions on the systems debacle?

<comment><USER22> Yes.

Why we do web?

Because lazy sysadmins blocked all but http.

But we still need to communicate.

Let's do udp like streams on top of tcp.

And may be we need to open firewalls still to make A&B communicate without going through a Central stuff C to have no SPOF.

Let's invent STUN a way to trick firewalls into opening an incoming transmission behing a FW.

Our security seems broken.

Indeed.

What do we do?

We put more broken stuff on the web like JWT/OAUTH.

And the STUN bite into your security?

Either ignore it or use a «DPI» proxy.

But it breaks the purpose of secured communications and still does not solves the problem, and breaks TLS.

Wait we have IPSEC in IPv6, no matter that cryptographically it is considered weak, it is by default in windows, PS4, and we have open source server... that are buggy as hell with root rights.

Maybe PGP, SSH, roll your won crypto?

Good idea, no users know how to use them correctly, devops included...

And what about the multiplication of passwords and credentials?

Let's use broken application with root rights and bugs to serve as a wallet that has a good UI, or an good enough application no one can use because of the restrictions?

Money is based on trust. The real harm that can happen to IT is to lose the trust of the customers, hence its value.</comment></comment>


Moscow subway sells free tickets for 30 sit-ups - <AUTHOR> http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/08-11-2013/126095-moscow_subway-0/ <comment><USER2> As Russian I want to share my first association:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C-jcCWu31s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C-jcCWu31s)

Westerners could try to understand it by watching entire movie:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin-dza-dza](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin- dza-dza)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I47CNxwlt9U](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I47CNxwlt9U)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eti9Qn4bZDg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eti9Qn4bZDg)

<comment><USER3> Highly recommend everyone gets a copy of Kin-dza-dza (with subtitles, if necessary) and watch it. Very quirky and amusing sci-fi. Apocalyptic/alien exploration crossed with Les Visiteurs.

<comment><USER4> Mosfilm, the huge Soviet-era movie studio, has published a sizable portion of their catalog for free viewing on YouTube: [http://youtube.com/mosfilm](http://youtube.com/mosfilm).

A lot of them have English subtitles. Kin-dza-dza is indeed up there. Brilliantovaya Ruka (The Diamond Arm) is another favorite of mine available with subtitles. And perhaps the most popular is the holiday classic The Irony of Fate.

<comment><USER5> Thanks very much for sharing

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> According to the BBC coverage of this story(and what is actually shown in the video), it was squats rather than situps:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- europe-24873180](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24873180)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately the article links to the wrong video.

Link to actual youtube video:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojo9M1cPSPI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojo9M1cPSPI)

</comment><comment><USER7> I envision people standing there doing squats all day churning out tickets and selling them/asking for change.

<comment><USER8> A year or so ago, there was a thread on r/fitness about this group of people who had tried to do 1000 kettlebell swings a day for 10 days, and it turned to a discussion of whether it would even be possible to do this for squats or other exercises.

So I decided to try. I managed to put in about 400 a day, and I think I reached 600 one of the days.

I'm an amateur power lifter. My squat max is about 190kg, and I do about 80 or so weighted reps on my squat days, ranging from 70kg on the lightest warmup set up to about 160kg x 5, and 5 sets of 10 at 80kg.

That feels like nothing compared to doing 400 body weight squats per day. The soreness and burn was just terrible, but worst was the demotivating effect of knowing you have still more sets (I varied my sets between 25 and 100 reps; ~35-50 seemed to be optimal for me in getting as many done as quickly as possible)

I'd like to try a high rep program again (probably not that high) for a few weeks to see how it works during a cut, as that was the original purpose of the kettlebell experiment mentioned, but the brutal effect on motivation is not something I look forward to.

<comment><USER9> To be fair, as a powerlifter, I suspect you are highly adapted to maximising peak power, rather than prolonged power over 400 - 1000 squats. I would think that anything above 100 largely becomes an endurance exercise which requires a very different adaptation.

As a 48yo rower, I can do IRO 300 squats before feeling the burn too badly, but then I have been doing endurance-type training for the past 35 years. I have known lightweight rowers who were pretty much unlimited in the number they could do in 1 hit. Their only limit was needing to eat/sleep/etc!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We have a penalty system at work if you break the build or cause the music to skip, or any number of other frivolous "office infractions" you have to put a buck in our tip jar which is used to buy beer. If you don't want to pay the buck, though, you can optionally do 20 pushups instead. So far only one person has opted for the pushups though.

<comment><USER11> That sounds suspiciously like brogramming to me. You must donate $20 to the Ada Initiative as a penalty for your non-inclusive work culture. Or alternative, do 50 lunges.

<comment><USER12> I don't get it. Are women supposed to be averse to pushups? Maybe you haven't met my sister; she runs marathons and is a Soo Bahk Do black belt. Pushups: no problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This sort of thing could be put to good use, for instance if they installed massive ranks of bicycle generators, they could let people get tickets by actually powering the trains.

<comment><USER14> They've used to do that kind of thing in the past [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga)

<comment><USER13> I was thinking of Charlie Brooker's version from Black Mirror.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is an amazing idea. Wish it would find widespread (global) use.

(Although this would potentially lead to a completely subsidized transport system... but then you could increase the barrier to getting the free ticket or have the barrier depend on the person's physical fitness... and you might get the cost for the tickets back from the decrease in healthcare costs... it's just got so much potential!)

<comment><USER16> But this couldn't be introduced in the US, and maybe not even in Europe. In the US you would definitely get instantly sued (and lose) for discrimination on physical fitness.

<comment><USER17> Not if you also offered a method to pay cash for the tickets. No discrimination then.

<comment><USER18> I'm not so sure about that... what if you're a disabled person?

What if you started giving free tickets to people who can do 60 sit-ups, or 100, instead of 30? Wouldn't this mean free tickets for men only (or mostly)?

<comment><USER15> So give the disabled people a free ride (which, YMMV, they should be getting anyway and actually are already in Germany)

As for the men-only part... enhance the system to not use a fixed number but have that number depend on the applicant's estimated gender, age, weight etc.

You could even gamify this, gain money from selling people's user statistics (ugh!) etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> No points for climbing those stairs when the escalators are down? They are the deepest subway I've even been in (also the most beautiful, goes without saying).

<comment><USER12> Points for running them! Also hopping up one-legged. Like by son's Tae Kwon Do national team did for conditioning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> indian railways please implement this in india. we have a sizable obese population who would do anything to get a free ride. health and money at one go. so much win

<comment><USER21> This whole idea is pretty weird. Not surprising it comes from Russia. It is very reminiscent of the idea promoted both by the Nazis and communists that citizens should be fit for the state.

<comment><USER22> How is it any weirder than forcing people to purchase financial services that pay for medical treatments, something that most countries do? Once you make people's health a collective responsibility, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that people maintain fitness.

I just wish they didn't do situps. Situps are terrible for your back. There are so many better options - just make people hold a plank for a minute.

<comment><USER23> It was probably one of the easier exercises to monitor automatically, I should think a camera is less prone wear&tear than a pressure mat for planking... There is also hygiene to think about, not in the sense of an actual concern, but in the sense that people will be more averse to lying face down on a mat used by maybe hundreds of people every day.

I do agree with your sentiment BTW, here in Norway there's been quite a bit of talk about similar programs through the years, but there are just too many pit-falls on the way, usually doesn't even get past the "Rights for X" organisations' whining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Another example to something in this realm comes from Brazil, where you can cut time from your prison sentence by riding bikes. [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/12/stationary- bi...](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/12/stationary-bikes-get- brazilian-prisoners-closer-to-freedom)

and yea, totally Black Mirror S01E02. The best one imho.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm all for promoting physical fitness, but this seems like discrimination against elderly / disabled people.

<comment><USER26> I see no problem with promoting good health. There are plenty of elderly people who can do sit-ups.

People who weigh over 350lbs eat free at Heart Attack Grill. Are they discriminating against non-obease people?

<comment><USER27> > Are they discriminating against non-obease people?

Yes. It doesn't get any more straightforward than that.

<comment><USER28> Just like giving free rides to disabled people is discriminatory against healthy people?

<comment><USER27> Yes, absolutely. Is there something I'm missing here? These questions seem easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In the French Foreign Legion they have _l 'aperitif_, which is that you do 10 chin-ups before entering the mess hall. SWMBO has vetoed me instigating a similar policy for our dining room.

</comment><comment><USER30> This is fatshaming. Thin privilege is getting free subway rides. thisisthinprivilege.tumblr.com (couldn't resist)

</comment><comment><USER31> I suppose it wont last long past Sochi-2014 Olympics.

</comment><comment><USER32> every crazy dictator is found of eugenics.</comment>


Show HN: City Life – daily hunt for fun stuff in NYC - <AUTHOR> http://citylifedaily.com <comment><USER2> Definitely an interesting concept. It works well on mobile (better than on desktop from my perspective).

What are the categories of places that appear in the list? Is there any dynamics in the list? How often is the list re-created? It's not fully clear to me what items appear in your list. Can we also expect to see future events (like concerts tonight, gallery expositions,...)?

Is is possible to see/filter from categories? It would be great to add more cities to the list. I'd love to have this in Europe!

If you want feedback from more people, you can try our give & get feedback platform, [https://usability.testing.exchange](https://usability.testing.exchange).

Good luck!</comment>