I Visit Libraries to Sell Bitcoins to Random People from the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-visit-libraries-to-sell-bitcoins-to-random-people-from-the-internet

<comment><USER3> "nothing could be done over the phone, though I was welcome to walk into a branch and try my luck there" \- This is sadly common with UK banks. They want you to go to the branch for all sorts of things that really don't need it, but the branch is always closed or overcrowded when you have time to get there. It doesn't help that you have to use your own branch, not any of the others - <USER2> if they don't have a computer network between them? Or perhaps they feel the local staff somehow remember who you are and what your tedious banking problems are? Somehow they decide there's no need to be open in the morning, evening or Saturday afternoons, even though they're turning people away and squeezing the bloated queue inside the doors so they can get ready to close. I was also overseas when I was told the only way to get the few thousand pounds from my account was to go the the branch. Eventually they found another way.

<comment><USER4> Speaking of bank opening hours, this is something I really don't get. Where I live, all branches of most of the banks are open only Monday-Friday between 0900 and 1700, which is exactly when most people are at work. Every time I need to visit the bank in person (and 'till recently my bank didn't have cash deposit machines), I need to take half a day off at my work.

It's similar with some services, i.e. barbers. What I don't get is how do they make money when they're opened only when people don't have time to visit them. There must be something weird going on there, otherwise I'd expect the market to force them to shift opening hours so that working people could use those services.

<comment><USER5> Banks basically don't need to innovate on their hours. If all banks are open similar hours, none of them feel the need to impact their costs by opening longer knowing that it will just force their competitors to do the same and level the playing field again, with everyone (banks not customers) losing out.

Barbers, all the ones I've known in a few UK cities have always had at least a couple of evenings they would open for, if not all evenings (though I generally go during the day anyway). Presumably because there's so many more than there are major banks, and because it's a key decision making factor for consumers - people are more likely to think "I'll get my hair cut at X instead of Z because it's open when I want a haircut" than "I'll bank with X instead of Z because some day I may prefer the opening hours". Not sure if my different experience is based on location or the fact that I generally go to not-cheap places which wouldn't use the term "barbers" to promote themselves.

<comment><USER6> The commercial banking industry has been watching TD Bank for the past few years.

Banks compete in 2 main areas: interest rates and services. TD Bank has a far better service offering than Citibank, Chase, etc. TD Bank offers ATM fee reimbursement anywhere in the world, much longer branch hours, free coin counting, nicer employees, etc. And yet TD Bank is not crushing the competition. TD Bank's better service offering is not enough of a competitive advantage to offset the stickiness of commercial banking.

A person's main checking account is a pain to transfer for most people. To change your checking account you need to: 1) Wait days for the new account to be approved and initial transfer to clear 2) Wait to receive new checks 3) Reset up your recurring bill payments

The reason that most banks don't innovate is that customers move to better banks very slowly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am not a lawyer, but the author should consult one. Money transmitting businesses are heavily regulated in the United States, and operating such a business without registration and compliance with regulations may be illegal.

These laws are not a joke; there's a reason that all the mainstream Bitcoin businesses have these constraints, registrations, and rules, despite the way they impede customers and businesses: "know your customer", anti-money laundering and Patriot act constraints on terrorism funding are very real and serious interests of government units with powerful enforcement powers.

Be warned that this is not the same as selling lemonade in the government's eyes.

<comment><USER8> IAAL.

I'll cover money laundering first since it seems to get so often repeated here:

No, exchanging bitcoin for cash, or vice versa, is not in and of itself money laundering. Replace "bitcoin" with "casino chips". Is every casino in Vegas behind bars? No. Why not? Because there was no intent to launder, only an intent to exchange value for value.

Secondly, the concern over bitcoin dealing being a Money Services Business (MSB) is a little more legitimate. IIRC, FinCEN has already stated that these sorts of businesses are MSBs, and require all the usual compliance measures attached to that label. There are also some states that consider bitcoin trading businesses MSBs as well, on the state level. On a practical level though, hardly anyone is enforcing these rules. Does that mean there's no risk? No, of course not; there's definitely a risk. It's just not currently that large of a risk.

Lastly, with regards to unreported income, that's an issue with any income, regardless of source. If a stranger handed you $10 out of nowhere, that's income and you're required to report it. Hell, if you sold some crack to that stranger in exchange for those $10, you're required to report it. Unreported income is not a bitcoin specific concern.

<comment><USER7> I didn't mean it was necessarily laundering, just that there's a number of regulations intended to detect and control money laundering that may apply to the author.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How interesting. Makes me want to set up a similar service where I am. $500 minimum, mark it up a steady 10% based on price when the order is placed, and offer to buy the coffee when you meet at the local cafe to make the swap.

Hard to make a living unless you're doing it full time, but the hobby would pay for itself and then some, and you'd meet some interesting people and learn your way around the ecosystem.

As for the money... keep the cash! Use the cash! Cash is convenient, cash is universal! I've been thinking about going all cash for anything but purchases that must be made online, and even those can be made with prepay cards that can be bought with cash. edit: a moment of thought reveals you have to put the cash back into the system somehow or another in order to fund more bitcoins. So, there's that fantasy shot.

<comment><USER10> This guy is extremely lucky all that happened to him is that he got his bank account closed. With the amounts of money he was dealing in, what he was doing could have easily gotten him arrested.

<comment><USER9> I don't understand. What would he be arrested for?

<comment><USER11> It's a complex issue.

Basically, while you are in theory free to move money around as you please - for yourself or as a service to others - doing so in large quantities will get you scrutinized. If uppon scrutiny there is any doubt as to from where the money came or where it went, you'll be flagged for "money laundering". Once that happens the "authorities" will essentially go with a haircomb through anything and everything you've ever done, and then, uppon dicsovering that you are in fact not a criminal, keep on looking until they actually find something to justify all of that effort they just wasted on you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So can anyone explain why banks would suddenly close an account like that in the UK? Would they do that in the US? He is despositing a lot of cash and electronically transmitting money from that account. Wouldn't any small business that does a lot of cash transactions run into this same problem?

<comment><USER13> It happens with US accounts too. Banks have a strong incentive to avoid money laundering activities, and no real penalty for false positives.

<comment><USER14> _Banks have a strong incentive to avoid money laundering activities_

Most banks have automated systems that flag on certain automated conditions (I know because I built one). Contrary to some of the posts in here, they do _not_ want to flag accounts, and most do the absolutely minimal mandated under AML legislation.

We have no idea why his account was closed, but it is extremely unlikely it was due to suspected money laundering. If they suspect money laundering, they legally _must_ report it (this is the case in the US, Canada, and the UK, at a minimum) to the appropriate government agency, where it will be investigated. They can't simply say "looks like money laundering, go somewhere else".

As always everyone is operating under very incomplete information.

<comment><USER15> _We have no idea why his account was closed, but it is extremely unlikely it was due to suspected money laundering. If they suspect money laundering, they legally must report it (this is the case in the US, Canada, and the UK, at a minimum) to the appropriate government agency, where it will be investigated. They can 't simply say "looks like money laundering, go somewhere else"._

"Fill out AML suspicious activities report" and "close his account" are mutually exclusive courses of actions. Just because one happened doesn't mean the other ones didn't happen.

Like you said, we're operating under very incomplete information, so let's not assume "fill out AML suspicious activities report" didn't happen here.

<comment><USER14> They usually are mutually exclusive, at least in the US and Canada. If an AML flag is triggered, or there is reasonable suspicion, they have to report it and are barred from telling you that you've been reported. Kick you out as a customer would be a great way to undermine the whole AML thing.

It is entirely possible that if he simply had transfers to or from known Bitcoin entities, that would have triggered it. Not because he did anything illegal -- Bitcoin isn't currently illegal in most places, and they have zero onus to report anything in that case -- but that the bank is hedging that there will be issues that come up in the future and they don't want the hassle. That they have determined that Bitcoin is going to be a regulation hassle in the future so they simply want to have nothing to do with it. This is in no way money laundering, or suspicion of it, and they needn't report anything -- just tell him to get lost so in a year or two when this becomes a big thing they have limited their exposure.

<comment><USER15> >If an AML flag is triggered, or there is reasonable suspicion, they have to report it and are barred from telling you that you've been reported.

Completely agreed.

>Kick you out as a customer would be a great way to undermine the whole AML thing.

This is where I think you're overreaching. Do you have a source on this? AFAIK closing an account isn't against any AML legislations. There's no onus on the bank keep a suspicious account (whether it's AML related, Bitcoin related, or just because the bank manager didn't feel like serving this account was profitable proposition anymore) open even when it's against their financial interest to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Counterfeit money is a bit risk when doing this. There have been several stories of localbitcoin sellers receiving counterfeit money.

<comment><USER17> Assuming you mean big risk, how so? It's very hard to counterfeit modern currency. Color changing ink, watermarks, and the embedded strip are all hard to counterfeit especially in tandem.

<comment><USER18> Sure but your average bitcoin trader doesn't have the equipment to pick up on those features.

<comment><USER19> With US bills, you can use one of these... costs $5.50: [http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/548370/Dri-Mark-US- Cou...](http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/548370/Dri-Mark-US-Counterfeit- Money-Detector/)

Also, on $100 bills, Ben Franklin has a ghost image that can be seen holding up to the light.

<comment><USER17> NO! BAD! Do not trust the pens. All they do is check the acidity of the paper which is one of the easiest things to fake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't get it: They say that they started using Bitcoin to help transfer money overseas, yet later in the article they talk of using TransferWise to move money abroad (which deals in pounds and dollars, not Bitcoin)

If bitcoin's strength is meant to be its low cost for moving money around, how come even this Bitcoin peddlar cashes out back into fiat to move it?

<comment><USER21> He's running an arbitrage cycle, selling bitcoins for pounds. In order to _get_ bitcoins he's buying them on an exchange with dollars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > I knew I was playing in a grey area

For me it looks like this is obviously illegal because he conducts a business without registering one.

<comment><USER9> If you bake pies at home and sell them to friends, do you have to register yourself as a business? There might be benefits to it but he could also just be self-employed. As long as he declares his earnings and pays taxes on them there shouldn't be a problem.

<comment><USER23> If it is strictly "to friends" in a way that is not legally to the general public, possibly not (but if you are soliciting people in public places, then its probably public sales.) For public sales of food, you probably need both a business license _and_ separate health clearance for selling food, if your state law even allows selling food made in a home kitchen (California recently adopted a law allowing this, with very narrow limits.)

<comment><USER24> You can make a certain amount of capital gains in the UK without paying tax. It's in the region of 10K I think. I guess buying bitcoin at market price and selling at 'a different market price' counts as capital gains on an investment until the point where you've made enough money to have to declare it. And this would be on your tax form at the end of the year.

At least that's how I understand it. I'm not an accountant but have been unloading a few coins this year and I'm pretty sure I don't need to declare anything until I make more than a certain amount across all my investments.

[https://www.gov.uk/personal-tax/capital-gains- tax](https://www.gov.uk/personal-tax/capital-gains-tax)

<comment><USER25> In the US, as I understand it you wouldn't be able to use capital gains on this kind of thing because you haven't held the Bitcoins for a year. It would be "short term capital gain" which would be the same as ordinary income.

The real risk here is that if you don't track all the transactions and report and pay taxes on the profit (at, likely, ordinary income tax rates), you'll get nailed for tax evasion.

I imagine (though I have no experience) that this must be similar to having a marijuana based business. If you want to be legit you have to open a bank account... but not a lot of banks want to touch a business like that.

You might think you could just lie on the bank account opening form where it asks about what the business will be doing, and say you're opening a coffee shop or food cart (something with cash sales), but then you could be nailed for lying on a form, and since (again in the US) most accounts are FDIC insured, that could be under the rubric of lying to the Federal government (not good).

I don't have direct experience with this, IANAL etc., but these are some loose concepts that come to mind.

Too bad, great idea, classic good example of arbitrage/exploiting market inefficiencies. I think it's even do-able legitimately, though it's slightly too far along the risk-reward curve for my taste ATM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Bitcoin article on the Barclays website:

[https://wealth.barclays.com/en_gb/home/research/research- cen...](https://wealth.barclays.com/en_gb/home/research/research- centre/compass/compass-apr-2014/evolution-of-modern-money.html)</comment>


A Comprehensive, Intro to SEO Powerpoint Slide Deck - <AUTHOR> http://www.seomoz.org/blog/a-comprehensive-intro-to-seo-powerpoint-slide-deck- <comment><USER2> Great guide! Indeed very comprehensive.

However I don't think it's for beginners and people just starting with SEO. Too much information is sometimes overwhelming :)</comment>


PhpMyAdmin gets new interface - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/113803472677347037123/posts/RRHbJnh9g39

<comment><USER2> This has been around for years...

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not new.

</comment><comment><USER4> oh come on

</comment><comment><USER5> what?

</comment><comment><USER6> noob

</comment><comment><USER7> Real old.</comment>


The monk tax - <AUTHOR> http://blog.vivekhaldar.com/post/13776333966/the-monk-tax

<comment><USER2> "In the modern world, if you want to check out from the turbulence of day-to- day life to focus deeply on something, but not in a religious way, and do so surrounded by a few kindred souls, the place to do that is a university."

Is it, though? I agree 100% that it _should_ be, but modern academia is so mired in political drama that it's hard to make that argument without doing something about the systemic "publish or perish" mindset and the fear of administrative retribution for publishing overly-controversial research.</comment>


What language do you use to write apps for Android? - <AUTHOR>

If you answered "Java", congratulations, you alongside thousands of Google employees have just participated in committing trademark and licensing infringement on the owners of "Java".
But I can't blame you, Google after all doesn't call it say "Visual Basic", they would probably lose that case pretty quickly, but why?
When MS tried to fork Java years ago they settled in court.  This case is no different, nay its worse because MS didn't step on SUNs mobile licensing agreements.
So now EFF is coming out saying this is a copyright spat (which its not)  Be careful of that.  Saying that "APIs" are not copyrightable will render tons of open source projects licenses invalid, since all open source licenses "rest on top" eg append copyright laws.
Yup that crap at the top of the file wont mean a damn thing once we start parsing what can and cant be copyrighted.
The only possible defense Google has is denying that its Java.  But thats what they called it before they stole it.  And thats what they still call it.
If you work at google I suggest you come up with a new name because even referring to "whatever" that is that runs on Android as "Java", is licensing and trademark infringement.  White gloves and all. <comment><USER2> Flagged. The title is a bit baity. I came here hoping to read up on the beginnings of a good discussion of Android development options and instead I run into a random, incoherent rant of no value.

These kinds of rants are probably more appropriately posted at your personal blog, not in an Ask HN post. Your account is 10 days old and your comment history is filled with similar incoherency. Perhaps you should post less and read more until you get a good handle on HN culture?

</comment><comment><USER3> > Saying that "APIs" are not copyrightable will render tons > of open source > projects licenses invalid, since all open > source licenses "rest on top" eg > append copyright laws.

I don't think this is true. Open source licenses dictate what you can or cannot do with the _code_ , not with the API it implements. You're perfectly free to go ahead and, say, implement a closed source version of a GPL library - as long as it's not based on the original code.

Abolishing copyright /in general/ would render most (all?) open source licenses void, but that's an entirely different matter.

</comment><comment><USER4> Florian? Is that you?

</comment><comment><USER5> The "use" of Java ends inside the SDK. Java bytecodes are translated to Dalvik bytecodes. There is no Java(tm) runtime in Android.

Since there is no Java runtime in Android, what are Google's obligations to Oracle? What are an Android developer's obligations? I see none in the licensing.</comment>


Scooters are taking cars off the road, a survey says - <AUTHOR> https://ggwash.org/view/69621/scooters-are-taking-cars-off-the-road-a-survey-says <comment><USER2> So many people consider this a menace when in many ways it's closer to utopia. For decades cities have tried to get commuters to switch to bikes and public transportation, but nothing has really stuck in the states due to the convenience of cars. Now that it's happening, some people aren't happy.

The situation is basically that 20% of the population of some cities has switched to an ideal form of transportation within months, and our infrastructure isn't built for it. Imagine the number of bike commuters increased 1000% in three months. That's the situation were in. The irony of people complaining about it isn't lost on me.

People love bikes, and you never really hear complaints about people riding them just about anywhere. Bikers have been "violating" road and sidewalk laws for longer than cars have existed. These scooters are slower and smaller than bikes, and follow regulations better (reflectors, headlights, sometimes brake lights) . They're basically as carbon friendly as you can get for a motorized vehicle. And they're cheap and fairly durable. I bought one ~6 months ago and no problems for 500+ miles, it's practically taken my car off the road permenantly.

We should be embracing these scooter with open arms. They're drastically reducing road congestion at least in my city. Even displacing rideshare to the point that I've had many drivers tell me that nobody gets picked up downtown anymore.

But I guess the "get off my road/sidewalk" backlash is inevitable because people don't like change.

<comment><USER3> I agree with the general vibe of your post, but have some objections as a commuter cyclist who tried one of the e-scooters (Lime) last week.

>These scooters are slower and smaller than bikes, and follow regulations better

These things aren't slower than bikes: mine clocked at over 15MPH (I checked with a sports tracker app). Yes, bikes _can_ go faster. But commuter bikes usually don't (with traffic lights and obstacles peppered along your commute, you aren't riding at your top speed all the time).

More importantly, these things _accelerate_ faster than most casual cyclists.

Now, these things might have brake lights, but they don't have turn signals. And they are way more unstable than bicycles; it's pretty hard to indicate turns with one hand off the handlebars (and both hands off handlebars = fall, unlike on a bike).

Its small size is a disadvantage when it comes to visibility. And small wheels aren't good when it comes to potholes or curbs. And it's not obvious how to jump off that thing at speed (you can't let go of handlebars!).

So, we have an unstable (compared to a bike) platform that can suddenly, unpredictably (to others) accelerate to 15MPH. Is this the future? Weather permitting, looks like it. But we definitely don't have infrastructure for it yet.

We need roads for traffic like that which aren't for either cars or pedestrians. And narrow bike lanes which cars can get into simply won't do.

<comment><USER2> They are slower generally. I know this because most bikes pass me on my daily commute. Maybe 10% of cyclists ride slower, my old bike used to have a speedometer and I averaged 18-22 mph over long distances.

Also keep in mind that the motors are voltage limited at ~15mph. Near that speed, acceleration is basically zero, whereas a bike can accelerate further rather easily.

Acceleration is definitely slower than a bike. Maybe half as much. The scooters are usually 250w but only ~170 makes it to the wheels. Bike riders average 200-300w output and when they first get moving people tend to put in more effort, maybe 400-500 watts. The low speed efficiency of the motors is also terrible, probably less than 100 watts to the ground below 7 mph. I get passed by bikes in straights and between lights every day, and pass only a few bikers a week myself.

Lack of turn signals does suck, I hope they fix this. They should be required. I also agree about visibility and smaller wheels.

I disagree about stability, the center of gravity of the vehicle is much lower, and having your body totally unconstraind with feet inches off the ground makes it far easier to bail. I've flown over the handlebars on a bike more than once because the high CG and large wheels, got severely injured once. Bailing on a scooter is easy and I don't expect anyone in decent shape to get injured because you basically hop off into a brisk run, you can't really do that on a bike.

I've been riding scooters much more than most, close to 5 miles a day, and to me taking one hand off the handlebars is fairly easy. It also feels slower than a bike to me, and sometimes I'll give it a kick start for the first couple seconds. A lot of the reason they feel fast and unstable is because hardly anyone has ridden them much IMO

<comment><USER4> Most cyclists can't maintain a speed of 18mph or a power output of 200w for very long. People who are in good shape and train for cycling can do it, but the average rider out on the street is probably putting out 150w or less. Check the estimated power numbers on some popular urban Strava segments.

<comment><USER5> Yep. I can ride this speed and maintain it, but I definitely wouldn't be riding that fast to work or I'd need a shower.

Commuter bicycle speed is closer to 13mph. It's why lights in cities that are optimized for bicycles are optimized for that speed:

[https://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/04/11/dpw-syncs- signals-...](https://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/04/11/dpw-syncs-signals- on-16th-ave-to-give-cyclists-a-green-wave/)

(if anything, I find my pace closer to 10mph when I'm riding to work)

Either way, these bikes are on a bike path which is a safe space for them and they're moving closer to the speed of cars. Most scooters, in Denver at least, are operated on the side walk, so you have pedestrians sharing space with 15mph SILENT scooters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In the mean time electric scooters are illegal in UK because of some 200 year old law that talks about pigs and donkeys ([http://uk.businessinsider.com/electric-scooters- illegal-1835...](http://uk.businessinsider.com/electric-scooters- illegal-1835-highways-act-2018-8)). Even so I see an increasing number of people using them, because apparently cops just turn a blind eye, which does make sense, unlike this law.

<comment><USER7> The law regarding > 250w e-bikes is ridiculous too and badly needs updating.

[https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/advice/advice/buying- and-r...](https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/advice/advice/buying-and-riding- an-s-pedelec-in-the-uk-1637)

<comment><USER8> What bothers me even more is the 25 kph speed limit, after which all the electronics are legally required to be dead weight. Come on, I can cycle faster than that on muscle power (and I normally do). I've averaged 27 kph doing 90 kilometers on a friggin touring bike, carrying a sleeping bag, change of clothes, shoes.

I take a bike to get from place A to B faster. I'd take an electric bike to get even faster while spending less of my own energy. Actually, I'd be quite happy even with just 250W as long as I can use all of it on top of my muscle power, no matter how fast or slow I'm going.

Speed is ultimately what makes me pick the car over bike for longer rides.

<comment><USER9> Riding consistently enough to gain speed is strongly correlated with being a better rider. I don't want to share the bike path with a bunch of 14-year-old kids traveling 40kph on electric bikes that they got for Christmas.

<comment><USER10> This is a load of horse crap. You routinely hit 25 mph (40kph) simply riding down hills on a normal bike.

The 25 kph limit makes no sense. It's a slower speed than almost every rider out there, and it's frustratingly slow as a daily commute.

<comment><USER11> Routinely? On a standard commuter grade bike?

The Oxford Cycling Club, pictured here [http://www.oxfordcyclingclub.co.uk/the-kings- men/](http://www.oxfordcyclingclub.co.uk/the-kings-men/) claim an average of 20 km/h (13mph) and they're lycra clad racing-bike riders.

I think you can break 25km/h readily, but I don't think that means we should increase the speed allowed with power assist.

There are moves to make city traffic 32km/h (20mph) limited which would put paid to your 40km/h anyway.

<comment><USER12> No they don't. The Oxford Cycling Club claims an average of 17mph -19mph or 27-30kph: [https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/club/profile/7892/oxford-c...](https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/club/profile/7892/oxford- cycling-club)

"The average speed can vary according to weather conditions and ability, but expect an overall average of around 17mph -19mph for a ride of 60 miles"

Furthermore, an average speed will have significantly faster and slower portions along the ride. The OCC will drop to far slower speeds uphill and will ride far faster on the downhill.

<comment><USER11> They must claim different averages on different pages, [https://oxfordcycling.uk/about-us/](https://oxfordcycling.uk/about-us/) says 12-13mph.

Yes, of course downhill is faster. On a mountain bike I've only knowingly once managed to break 30mph, but that was going for it and definitely not erring on being safe. My average road speed at the time was about 15mph.

The top speed for powered cycles should be around the normal average as then there's not a large differential between powered and unpowered bikes making it safer when they share road space.

<comment><USER12> That appears to be a ride where they've deliberately set a slower pace for a ride based around socializing. 12-13 mph is about right if you're going to be leisurely carrying on conversations with fellow riders. Any faster and wind noise becomes an issue. I can't talk to my fellow riders at 20+mph.

"lycra clad racing-bike riders" ride far faster.

Capping a vehicle at 15mph means you'll be constantly getting passed on trails. I have ridden a 15mph capped scooter, I was one of the slowest vehicles in my local area that day. I returned it.

<comment><USER11> If you're getting passed, pedal?

The top assisted ebike speed should be well below the top pedalling speed. Which it is.

<comment><USER12> Scooters don't have pedals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Scooters and electric bicycles are the sensible form of electric mobility, but everybody talks about electric cars. Which makes sense, since billion dollar companies can make a lot more money selling cars than cheap scooters and bicycles.

Small electric vehicles effectively solve the last mile problem of public transport.

<comment><USER8> > Scooters and electric bicycles are the sensible form of electric mobility, > but everybody talks about electric cars.

Yes, because cars make sense when you've got more than your own arse to haul. Or when you don't want to end up in your destination dripping wet. Or when you want to sit in a warm cabin instead of fighting frostburns on a bicycle. Or when you don't want to be slipping on ice or getting stuck in snow..

<comment><USER14> All of these points are brought up a lot, but none of them are really valid. Cargo bikes (with electric assist, if you wish) can haul a tremendous amount of cargo or multiple kids. And weather is really only a problem if you're badly equipped. Get a hardshell jacket and some rainpants, and rain is no longer a problem. Get a warm jacket, gloves, and a hat against the cold (maybe some warm leggings if it gets really cold). And people not knowing how to behave on icy roads is a major problem if that person is steering a car. On a properly equipped bike, not so much.

<comment><USER15> All of these objections are terrible.

"Hey, just use this miserable half-solution!"

Cargo bikes? Rain gear? Heavy jackets? _Nobody wants to live like that_. Why should the future be constantly uncomfortable?

This is why I started hating urbanism: it's full of people whose entire argument is to deny the reality of other people's experience. Biking in the rain doesn't suck, crowded trains aren't uncomfortable, cargo bikes aren't exhausting, "wear a jacket", etc.

We hate these things. I do not want to live in this world you describe. It sounds _miserable._

<comment><USER14> I don't deny that sitting in a car in awful weather is more comfortable than cycling. I'm challenging cheap dismissals of cycling as a whole because the weather is awful for ten days of the year (unless you live in a place with daily tropical rainfalls or something), and I'm pointing out how people who live without a car deal with these things.

<comment><USER8> > I'm challenging cheap dismissals of cycling as a whole

Then you're in the wrong place. Nobody here dismissed cycling as a whole. I'm an avid cyclist but I also recognize the downsides of it, and I understand why cycling is not a stellar choice for many people. If you read my first message in this thread again, you'll see that I outlined a few examples of _specific_ scenarios when cycling isn't a good choice.

I live in a place with four seasons. There's _way_ more awful weather than ten days a year. Winter -- with ice and snow -- lasts months. Autumn with lots of rain and mud and chilly weather lasts a couple months. Spring, featuring meltwater everywhere, loose mud everywhere, and then again ice everywhere becaus it got cold again and the meltwater & mud froze lasts long enough too. Summer isn't without its storms and rainy days.

"Edge case after edge case" are something I regularly run into, every year. And the people around me do too. They are common enough that it is not unreasonable for people to consider a car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One of the biggest complaint I have been hearing is that scooters take space on sidewalks, and we are so used to cars that we don't see that cars not only also occupy way more real estate around the city (heck, think of dedicated parking lanes), but are even more deadly/dangerous.

The elephant in the room are cars, not scooters.

Then we have city administrations like in San Francisco - fighting useless battles against scooters instead of fixing real problems (homelessness, drug abuse, feces, and so on) that - unlike scooters - really are negatively affecting the life of us all.

<comment><USER17> _One of the biggest complaint I have been hearing is that scooters take space on sidewalks_

As a 4+ mile/day pedestrian, the biggest complaint I have is many of them are __ridden __on the sidewalk. I 've had too many close calls to count. I can't wait for the rainy season to start, so I won't need to worry about them anymore.

In CA, there is a state law that prevents them from being ridden on the sidewalk, yet the police in my city won't enforce it. Mayor told them "hands off" and near as I can tell, the Mayor is working a deal with the scooter companies. Money over safety. Disgusting.

<comment><USER18> That doesn't sound like a problem with scooters on the sidewalk, but with riders not being courteous - and the appropriate fix is for people to take appropriate care, not to boot scooters onto the road.

It doesn't surprise me that there are teething issues. Scooters are new and most people haven't learnt how to ride one without making other people feel uncomfortable. That will change in time.

<comment><USER19> On the other hand, cars have been around for quite a long time and a significant amount of licensed drivers have also been unable to learn how to drive without making other people feel uncomfortable. Betting that we could somehow fix these problems by urging people to be courteous when we haven't yet gotten road-users in general to even respect the law seems like a stretch.

<comment><USER18> It doesn't seem like a stretch to me. We already have bikes on our footpaths where I live (NZ) and it's a non issue. Cyclists just slow down around pedestrians. People are clearly capable of sharing footpaths courteously. Maybe where you live people are just arseholes, but that's not the fault of the scooter they're riding on.

<comment><USER19> Where I live, bicyclists should by law be either on the road or on a bicycle path or one of a few designated shared bicycle/footpaths. There are really too many pedestrians for it to make sense to use the sidewalk for bicycles inside the cities, and of course the benefits of commuting by bicycle disappears when you have to move at the same pace as pedestrians.

Also, from my experience with traffic in general, it doesn't take many assholes to make a situation uncomfortable, nor does it take an asshole to be inconsiderate. If one in ten road users or pedestrians I meet every day has a sudden lapse in judgement, that's enough for it to feel uncomfortable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What blows me away is that the US had not discovered 'regular scooter' culture.

I mean the scooters like mopeds.

They are common in almost _every country outside North America_!

In Paris you see this beautiful girl, flowing dress, like out of a magazine - and she's on her moped! Out to dinner or whatever, it's normal.

They are cheap and they take up the same space as a bicycle. If SF made a few 'moped / bicycle' only streets, like a grid in downtown, where traffic just flew by and was fast ... maybe you'd see tons of people make the switch.

<comment><USER21> 1\. Is it less safe?

2\. Only works in cities with good weather all year long. I don't want to ride a moped in flowing dress in chicago winter.

3\. Cities in US are spread out. I don't want to ride a moped on the highway to work or a friends house.

4\. Top speed is very low. Safe top speed is even less.

<comment><USER22> 1\. Than what? You'd rather be in a car than a moped if you crash, but creating an environment where crashes are less likely is most effective.

2\. I understand why you say this, but it's obviously untrue. Google "Paris in winter" to see what I mean.

3\. Mopeds only replace some forms of transport. Europe still has airports for instance - people to no moped across the atlantic.

<comment><USER23> Big difference between 3C and -8C not to mention the wind. My friend who lives in Chicago wears a ski mask to walk from the car. I don't think you realise quite how cold much of the US gets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As a resident of Portland (where the survey was conducted), the results match with my experience. Everyone seems to like them and they often replace short car trips. The only complaint I've heard with any frequency is that they're left in annoying places.

Having used them a bit myself, there are four improvements I'd like to see:

1\. Charging stations. While the current model where the scooters are collected and charged by people seems to get along, it's a bummer that they aren't easy to find at night. Most of them have been collected for charging. That means you can ride them somewhere and then not have one for the ride back, especially if you're in a group of people. It's also not that uncommon to be somewhere you'd expect to find one but with none nearby, or there are some but scattered over a few blocks. It would be nice if there were some stations scattered around the city where the scooters could be taken for charging but still be available for use, especially in high traffic areas and/or transit nodes like light rail stations (see #2). Even better if there's some incentive to drop them off there. That may help with the poor parking issue.

2\. Integration with public transit. As it currently is, riding transit round- trip costs $5. If you use a scooter to get to public transit it costs $7 + $0.15/min of scooter riding. I'd guess that works out to around $15 total for most trips, which is plenty. To encourage their use as a supplement to public transit, it would be great if they were integrated with public transit; e.g. using public transit waives the $1 start fee, or using public transit waives the first 10-15 minutes of scooter cost, incentivized charging stations at public transit locations, etc. Portland has the Hop fastpass system which could work nicely for the first two.

3\. Get rid of the helmet requirement. I don't hate it but I don't think it's effective or useful.

4\. The lights need to be better. While it's not that difficult to see a scooter at night because they're all lit, the lights don't provide much visibility for the rider.

<comment><USER25> > 1\. Charging stations.

That has high up-front costs which I'm guessing is why these startups don't do it, plus it requires negotiating with the city, and assuming your customers are not selfish assholes (that's an assumption which is not going to hold).

If you want charging stations, aside from the city negotiation and up-front costs you need to strongly incentivise their use _and_ have permanent crew roaming around to move devices back to charging stations, _and_ for high- traffic areas that's probably not going to be sufficient: your average e-k- scooter takes a couple hours to charge to 80%.

Battery-swapping (gogoro & co) is a pretty good alternative there as your "charging station" becomes a large bank of batteries you can swap in/out, but it requires room for standardised user-swappable batteries, and an actual standard. Not really an option for e-k-scooters where the battery is underfoot and at least partially structural.

<comment><USER24> I don't blame the scooter companies for not having stations, I just think they would be an improvement.

The stations could be on private property to avoid the permitting problem. I can see plenty of apartment buildings wanting a station out front. Portland would probably be receptive to permitting them, anyway. As for the incentive, a small one works pretty well with our bike share program. Full charging does take a while for a scooter but the idea with distributed stations would be to keep the scooters charged for longer, not forever. It's not really a charge problem, it's an availability problem -- the only way to charge a scooter right now makes it unavailable for the duration of a full charge. Stations would partially charge it and keep it available.

I think user-swapped batteries would probably be stolen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> On the HN front page today along with this post is this one:

\- _Study Links Uber and Lyft to Increase in U.S. Traffic Deaths_ \- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18318609](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18318609)

I am enjoying watching the ecosystem of personal transport shift and take affect on society. I find it fascinating to see the positives and negatives become highlighted as people use the services more, creating more scenarios and observations.

What are others' experiences and observations of the introduction of these transportation networks and what the future of, let's focus, city / densely populated areas? Does the future really look like: a gradient of number of wheels and carry-capacity: from light-weight electric scooters on demand to electric cars to freight-trucks on demand?

What is needed to sustain and to drive this change in transportation culture towards an efficient and safer (reduced transportation related fatalities, reduced carbon emissions, reduced time in long commutes)? My perspective is certainly influenced by my experiences living in cities the United States.

<comment><USER27> If current vehicle sales are an indicator, the future is still a lot of trucks and SUVs. Most Americans seem more concerned with comfort, lots of space, and the ability to survive a collision with another vehicle over changing society. Maybe it looks different in the Silicon Valley bubble, but outside of that it's trucks, SUVs and crossovers.

<comment><USER28> Ya I feel guilty of this myself. I think PHEV are a great idea, but I want an SUV for backcountry hiking/camping, and recently I've been driving across state to visit family and the comfort difference between my sedan and my sister's and gf's SUVs is enormous.

There are a couple hybrid options, but the SUV MPG are so underwhelming (e.g. ionic 57/59; rav4 hybrid 33/30). OTOH an increase of 10mpg from non-hybrid to hybrid rav4 is pretty decent.

<comment><USER29> You want an SUV ala Suburban, or Crossover ala RAV4?

Supposedly Subaru will be bringing a plug in hybrid Crosstrek to market next year. If I wasn't too tall, only fitting in an Outback, that would be quite compelling IMO.

<comment><USER28> Cool. I'll keep that in mind. I saw the existing hybrid crosstek got mixed reviews; I think partially cuz it only got 3mpg more than the non-hybrid.

<comment><USER29> Yes, the existing one is underwhelming. But a plug in would take me anywhere in town on electric only, so imo it's a big difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I live in the UK where these devices are basically nonexistent due to not being legal on either roads or pavements. I hadn't been to the US for a couple of years, so I hadn't seen them in action, but I just visited San Diego last week and _holy shit_ these things are everywhere, and an absolute menace. They were all over the sidewalks obstructing access; they were abandoned in the Tijuana River nature reserve; I had a number of close calls with careless riders, and talked to more than one person who'd been in an actual traffic collision with them.

There's nothing wrong with the concept, and it's great to be able to move people to more sustainable methods of transport - but it definitely seems like some kind of regulation is needed for provision of safe docking areas, penalties for unsafe usage etc.

<comment><USER31> On the other hand, I live in San Diego, and cars act as menaces far more often than scooters when I'm around, probably at a 5:1 ratio. They do menace differently, but I do appreciate how much less dangerously the scooters do it. For example, when someone parks a scooter in a right of way, it's irksome. When someone parks an SUV in a right of way (too close to corner) it makes it dangerous to pull out of that intersection. When scooter riders act entitled to the sidewalk where I'm walking, I can easily bear off. When a driver acts entitled to the road where I'm biking, they often do it by riding only a few feet behind me while laying on the horn.

The scooters seem like better neighbors to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> But scooters are only useful in good weather, I don't think anyone would ride a scooter in winter in Chicago or New York. So I don't really think they have a future of completely replacing cars throughout the year

<comment><USER33> I think you overestimate the extent to which it matters. People tend to stay home in bad weather car or not. I wouldn't take a scooter out on plowed streets but once the storm has passed and the streets have been plowed I don't see why you couldn't use a scooter in winter.

<comment><USER34> Because of the cold wind. Snow is one thing, but the cold wind blowing at you is something people won't be comfortable facing while on a scooter.

But yeah, 40F-60F's is completely okay for a shorter scooter rides I guess.

<comment><USER35> I've gone for runs in -30 weather, its not that bad if you cover up your skin.

40-60F is short sleeve/shorts weather around here for me. Around freezing is when it starts getting fun to run.

Yes I'm an abberation but I didn't start out this way.

<comment><USER32> You do realize that 99% of people feel cold in 40F. Think about the majority of population. Most of them don't run and just want to do their business by using scooter

<comment><USER35> > You do realize that 99% of people feel cold in 40F.

Yes, I addressed that in my last sentence. You presume I don't feel the cold, I do, I've just learnt how to tolerate it. Buddhist monks can dry wet towels in -40 weather. The human body is rather more tolerant of cold than you might think.

Also, source on 99%?

<comment><USER32> > But yeah, 40F-60F's is completely okay for a shorter scooter rides I guess

It's not for a majority of people

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > _The Portland Bureau of Transportation sent a questionnaire to 75,000 > scooter users and received 4,500 responses._

At least there's no question of the obvious bias. Of course scooter riders are going to report that they use scooters more than cars. How would the survey results be different if they surveyed car users too?

</comment><comment><USER37> The problem are 5 seat vehicles with an average of less than 2 people in them: waste of infrastructure, fuel, insurance, parking space, the environment, time...

Which is good if you sell cars, insurance or fuel. If you can be even more wasteful with a SUV or a pickup truck even better.

In this regard, Clive Sinclair was ahead of his time with the Sinclair C5, a personal electric vehicle created in 1985. I wonder what a reimagined version of this vehicle would look in 2018.

</comment><comment><USER38> A couple things worth mentioning:

\- It's a self reported based survey.

\- Of all those surveyed, the results are those who responded. That could bias there results.

\- Replacing an Uber with a scooter doesn't necessarily mean cars usage has been reduced.

Yes. This sounds promising. I hope so!! But let's get some hard data. Please?

</comment><comment><USER39> I would kill for a two person electric vehicle with a dome to protect the occupants from wind, dust and rain. I don't get why there are not such transport systems. It would be a great cross between a car and a motorcycle.

<comment><USER40> The Renault Twizy would fit your description.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> As a resident of Raleigh, NC..I can say the feedback has been unexpectedly positive.

Although, many people approve of the scooter situation, there has been a couple shortcomings:

* Riding on sidewalks!! Not only does the app discourage you from doing it, but most scooters have wrtitten warnings suggesting not to do it.

* Complete disregard for the rules of the road.

I actually sympathize with people who ride scooters. It turns out, the majority are not cyclists, and so, when suddenly put people in charge of such devices they revert to what they know (and are comfortable with), sticking to the sidewalks.

Furthermore, the few that do meander into the road do not know the actual rules of the road. That is, bike / cycling rules. Once the scooter hits the streets it should be treated as a bicycle. It should remain in the right side of the lane (assuming there's no bike lane), should produce all of the turn signals, and should definitely yield as any cyclist would. (I totally get that you might roll through a stop sign because theres nobody around, and there's no point in coming to a complete stop)

Anyway, this is is my mini-rant from having these things dropped off in my town for the last few months.

<comment><USER42> I live in Raleigh too and work downtown.

When walking on the sidewalks I've almost been run over by scooters about 8 times and been hit twice by jackets flying behind and to the side of the rider. I was okay but it did hurt.

All of my coworkers hate the things and some of them are ready to ban them.

For the first 2 months everyone I saw on a scooter was riding them on sidewalks. It seems to have gotten better in the last 2 months with scooter riders in the roads.

<comment><USER43> I hadn't been in Raleigh 4 hours last week and I almost got run down on one of the narrower sidewalks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Scooters are great for taking cars of single, able bodied individuals; who are usually the most numerous in dense city centers. For people with kids, elderly, the infirm, a four wheeled vehicle with cargo space is still desired.

<comment><USER45> A lot of people can't safely own and operate a car, either, whether due to poverty, age, or disability. While no transportation mode is the best for everyone, a diversity of options makes it likelier that each person will have at least one they can use.

(also, the "families need cars" thing is an artifact of American city design, not a universal rule. Tens of millions of families live in New York, London, Paris and Tokyo, and the majority do not have cars.)

<comment><USER27> Yeah, but those cities already exist, it's not like American families can say "Honey, you know this is just an artifact of how our cities we're designed, I'm selling the minivan!" Even if people would support a massive national infrastructure project to redesign cities and suburbs without the car in mind (and evidence is a majority won't support that), it would still be the work of decades.

For now American families really _do_ need cars. As for places like London, I have some experience here and the underground is a mess, busses and bus replacement services abound (and are terrible). [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk- england-london-44953440](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-44953440) That's no joke, I've been close to fainting myself and it wasn't even a hot day. Our politicians don't care about us, and we're basically unable to get and use a car unless we're minted and willing to sit in traffic. If you want to hold us up as a model, learn about the downsides you get trapped with when you give up personal mobility. A lot of us would kill for a car to be practical in and around London, and envy Americans giant cars and roads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Scooters have somewhat of a negative stigma in London [1], unless of course the scooter has a Deliveroo, JustEat or other courier on it.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/07/moped- enable...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/07/moped-enabled- crimes-london-police-called-to-430-a-week-in-past-year)

<comment><USER47> Your link is about mopeds, not scooters.

(Confusingly, mopeds are often called scooters in non-English speaking countries.)

<comment><USER48> Even more confusingly, "moped" often means a less powerful "scooter". In Czech, "moped" is 50ccm, scooter ("skůtr", pronounced the same) is up to 125ccm.

<comment><USER49> That's generally what they mean in most countries, in my experience.

<comment><USER25> Yep, except the US where scooter means kick-scooter: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_scooter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick_scooter)

<comment><USER50> That's what "scooter" means in the UK too.

<comment><USER51> In the UK, a "scooter" can be either a kick scooter like the one shown in the article or here: [https://www.microkickboard.com/childrens- scooters](https://www.microkickboard.com/childrens-scooters) , or a motor scooter, like the ones shown here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_(motorcycle)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_\(motorcycle\)) , [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_(subculture)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_\(subculture\))

This is a moped: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped) . It has bicycle pedals and a motor. You don't see them much nowadays.

There have recently been many reports of "moped crime": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped_crime_in_London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped_crime_in_London) but this seems to be done on motor scooters rather than mopeds: [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/terrifying-moment- west...](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/terrifying-moment-west-end- motorbike-raiders-wielding-hammer-and-crowbar-target- pedestrians-a3531461.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I bought an electric scooter (Zoom Stryder EX). It's really fun and works really well for my 4 mi commute.

However, it's pretty hard to get into the habit of riding 23min to work when I can drive in 11min. Also I like to listen to podcasts in the car, and I don't feel comfortable doing that on a scooter (I feel like I need to monitor surroundings more.)

<comment><USER52> How common is an 11 minute drive to work?

I'd guess there'd be a fair percentage of people that would get to work faster on a scooter than in their car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> really considering getting a scooter. mainly because it can fold up and go on bus or train with me. However main thing stopping me is that i would probably ride it instead of biking and biking gives me physical exercise whereas a scooter is just standing there

</comment><comment><USER54> So it is now Uber vs Tesla vs Scooters.

</comment><comment><USER55> EDIT: redacted

<comment><USER56> I'd argue encouraging bikes to be on the sidewalk are a negative trend. Hopefully that's not a long-term change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> What are dockless scooters?

</comment><comment><USER58> A study in Portland? Good luck making conclusions from that data.

</comment><comment><USER59> Notably older, two-stroke, scooters have extremely bad exhaust processing; a single two-stroke scooter emits somewhere between 200 to 700 times as much toxic stuff (in absolute terms!) as a car, including toxic compounds not even present in four-stroke exhaust (like benzene). So specifically those are absolutely not a better mode of transportation, let alone a less polluting one.

Well that and they're loud as f---.

<comment><USER60> Those 2 stroke engines have been banned for years

<comment><USER59> For new scooters, yes. There's a huge number of them on the 2nd hand market.

<comment><USER60> Not in the EU/USA apart from scooterists who lovingly restore them and do a few hundred miles a year.

<comment><USER59> These were available new until just a few years ago (2014ish). There are still many of them around, at least here in Germany.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How One 17-Year-Old Coded a #1 App and Got Hired by Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://thehustle.co/how-one-17-year-old-coded-a-number-one-app-and-got-hired-by-facebook <comment><USER3> I am impressed by his determination. The Pando article says it best:

"Sayman's experience is one that perhaps could only be entirely appreciated here in Silicon Valley, where entrepreneurship, ingenuity, and building something out of nothing, or rather, out of lines of code, still holds cult- like status, for good or ill. Sayman doesn't even seem to understand the power of his story.

He got his app where it is today not with millions or even thousands in venture capital. He didn't get it where it is with Silicon Valley connections or hookups to the magic elves who pick what's featured in the iOS app store. He didn't get it with a team of developers or designers or a co-founder or even an incorporated company. He didn't even get it there with natural technical talent. Instead, it took sheer force of will and a refusal to back down to any of the obstacles he faced. That, and an unholy faith in the power of Google to answer his questions."

""I watch my son, every night and every single day, staying up until 4 or 5 am, working on the app, doing his homework, sleeping two or three hours, and then going to school," Cristina Sayman says. "

I'm sad to say, I don't do this :( , I struggle to find that much willpower, even though I believe in what I'm building.

<comment><USER4> > > "I watch my son, every night and every single day, staying up until 4 or 5 > am, working on the app, doing his homework, sleeping two or three hours, and > then going to school," Cristina Sayman says. "

> I'm sad to say, I don't do this :( , I struggle to find that much willpower, > even though I believe in what I'm building.

It's great to have ambition and follow through with a project but staying up all night, sleeping 3 hours and going to school completely tired isn't the way to do it, not healthy at all and it shouldn't be encouraged.

No reason to be sad - save your willpower for reasonable hours.

<comment><USER5> Totally agree, this South Korean style of task management should be occasional.

I mean, Facebook still does the all-night Hackathon, and that's once a year I believe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope young people reading that article realize it's talking about someone winning the lottery. There's statistically zero chance that will happen to you, so you'd better work on your exams than code through the night and fail them.

<comment><USER7> I somewhat disagree. If someone has the passion that they'd rather code than study: They're most likely doing the wrong thing.

There needs to be more people chasing their dreams rather then being cranked through the academia process.

<comment><USER8> Being a programmer without good knowledge of calculus, linear algebra, etc. is going to suck. Even if you don't need it for your current project.

<comment><USER9> Serious question: Why?

My school does not require any math for the CS program, aside from very basic discrete math (very very basic). While I wish we did more math, the people that graduate get jobs and seem to do just fine without the math background.

I mean, they're not working at Google, Facebook, or the NSA (though a lot go work for the CIA for some reason), but it doesn't seem like it sucks for them.

<comment><USER10> Linear algebra is incredibly useful and, when you know how to spot its shape, is just about _everywhere_.

A (long) while ago, one of my coworkers spent months putting together an enormous framework for processing some data. It was really well done - <USER2> API, good error messages, verification at various steps, and reliable results. It was a little slow though. It was pushing 1 hour to complete a cycle, which was bumping up against other processes. A senior guy had a look at it, noticed that we could encode the data as a vector and apply some linear transformations to it, then decode afterwards. Thanks to lucky cache hits and BLAS, it took about 25 seconds to run.

<comment><USER9> I see. I think you hit an interesting point with that story: You may not need math to write an application, but it helps a lot when making it efficient and knowing which abstractions to use.

Personally, I'm going to spend some time after graduation teaching myself math. I think it can be incredibly helpful, even if it's just to improve my thinking.

<comment><USER8> I can highly recommend Gilbert Strang's Linear Algebra course, available as video lecture series [1]

[1] [http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear- algebra-...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear-algebra- spring-2010/video-lectures/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "How one 42 year old coded a #1 app and was not hired by facebook because of age discrimination" would be a better title.

<comment><USER12> No no, just clearly not up to the hiring bar. because reasons. tree algorithms or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Original Pando article from 2014:

[https://pando.com/2014/04/30/how-a-florida-kids-stupid- app-s...](https://pando.com/2014/04/30/how-a-florida-kids-stupid-app-saved- his-familys-home-and-landed-him-on-the-main-stage-of-facebooks-f8/)

<comment><USER14> Be good to see an article on what he's done in the meantime or is working on now.

<comment><USER15> [https://www.facebook.com/techprepprogram/videos/938666319504...](https://www.facebook.com/techprepprogram/videos/938666319504811/) \- posted this month, but it's a fluff piece "follow your dreams [in programming]" type piece rather than a synopsis of his current work efforts.

[https://www.facebook.com/ms](https://www.facebook.com/ms) has links to Michael Sayman's website which has all his social links, bet all you'd like to know is in there?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good move Facebook--get them young and put them to work. "It's like being at Disneyland!" he says. I'm jealous of his wide-eyed optimism.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if a 30-year old did this, they'd get hired, too?

<comment><USER18> No, because they would have a life and learned the abuse corporations put their employes through.

<comment><USER19> I think the parent comment was referring to ageism in the hiring process in Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER18> Yes, and a reason why they only hire very young people is that they haven't yet learned that saying yes to everything or putting employer before the private life won't help them in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _But there were only 1,500 apps in the iOS store in March 2010, and his rose into the top ten._

That sounds... off by a factor of 100...

<comment><USER21> The pando article says 150,000

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is this a comment on the kid, or on facebook?

</comment><comment><USER23> I totally expected this to be about Babel and @sebmck.

</comment><comment><USER21> And of course , the dev didn't port to Android, so someone made a knockoff for the Play Store.</comment>


Iberia claims it is part of a department store to avoid Brexit shutdown - <AUTHOR> https://www.headforpoints.com/2019/01/03/iberia-claims-to-be-part-of-a-department-store-and-not-an-airline-to-avoid-brexit-shutdown/ <comment><USER2> Why is it so hard to just cancel Brexit now as so many people have re- evaluated it?

<comment><USER3> Because 52% of people voted for it, and apparently any future votes on the subject would be "undemocratic".

<comment><USER4> I dunno about undemocratic, but definitely tainted by the smell of "keep voting until we get the right result", which has its own problems.

<comment><USER5> So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change? Oh. How come the 1975 referendum is invalid then, and a new one was needed? Smells like "keep voting etc" ;o)

<comment><USER6> >So, any choice ever made is permanent, never mind if the conditions change?

Yes. That's the entire premise of a voting process. The will of the people who vote, at the time the vote is taken, is binding even if they change their minds later.

<comment><USER7> Many parliamentary democracies have recall processes, where you can vote to remove someone that you voted to elect.

It's occasionally used when voters realize that what they voted for was incredibly stupid. So yes, you do get take-backsies in democracies.

<comment><USER6> If an existing process allows for it then I wouldn't consider that a "take- back." I guess it depends on the system involved.

You can't just decide a vote doesn't count because you don't like the outcome, though. Setting that precedent would mean no one who disagreed with a result would ever accept its legitimacy. There has to be a limit set somewhere.

<comment><USER7> You can, though, in matters of legislature and referendum.

A vote passing is not a suicide pact that locks you into that course of action between now and the heat death of the universe. It's possible to pass something, and then do another vote, later, to revert the changes you've made.

Likewise, in a parliament, you can keep bringing an issue up to a vote over, and over, and over again (See: Everything that Congress did after passing Obamacare). There's occasionally some set of procedures that prevents this kind of denial-of-service from being used _all_ the time... And occasionally not.

This happens in referendums, as well. The same issue appears on the ballot every few years, until the people pushing it get 50% + 1 support for it.

It's often the only way to actually get social progress. Keep hammering on your pet issue, until enough people agree with you, and it wins.

As long as you're not breaking any laws, or referendum procedures, it's completely fair game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For a consideration of some alternative Brexit scenarios I can heartily recommend this discussion:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2018/11/brexit-m...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2018/11/brexit-means-brexit.html)

I rather like the "surrender to the Republic of Ireland" option - if for no other reason than the effect it would have on the DUP.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure there are any unresolved disputes between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. There's the constitutional claim on the 32 counties, I suppose.

The most significant formal dispute between the states was a trade war in the 30s, discussed here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–United_Kingdom_relations)

The conflict in Northern Ireland has had only very minor and indirect connections to the governments in Dublin and London, which are both a long way from the situation on the ground. Any central government intervention on either side of that conflict would have been strictly unofficial.

<comment><USER10> There is still an unresolved dispute over Lough Foyle and a semi-resolved dispute over Rockall

<comment><USER9> But "surrendering to the Irish" on those issues wouldn't exactly be a big deal. I was talking about substantive disputes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _From El Pais: Garanair has no economic rights over Iberia, and is itself nearly worthless (its 7,000 shares are worth one euro)._

Some European M&A lawyer just had a heart attack. I bet this structure looked great to when no one was paying attention... Let's see how well it holds up under the gaze of ten thousand lawyers trying to re-unite $15B in market cap with a "worthless" parent company. British Airways may find it's been a wholy owned subsidary of El Corte Ingles this whole time.

</comment><comment><USER12> The subject of this story - El Corte Ingles [0] - is the the most diverse store I've every been in... they have everything from designer clothing to BBQ's. Think Amazon but with groceries, banking, travel agents, books for school, insurance, etc. Many goods and services you wouldn't find in a Walmart (some possibly at Costco). And their "house brands" aren't too bad they're fairly decent quality especially for the price.

[0] [https://www.elcorteingles.es/](https://www.elcorteingles.es/)

<comment><USER13> _> Think Amazon..._

Interesting analogy, since Amazon also has its own airline (albeit for cargo rather than passengers)

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Only airlines which have 50.1% EU ownership have 'flying rights' to operate > between two airports within the EU.

Forgive my ignorance towards this law. One wonders if this is economic protectionism or for security (I am aware of similar situations in other countries/regions). So I couldn't have a majority-Norwegian-owned airline that did Germany to France stops? One wonders if all countries are happy with such policies or if this type of protectionism is more justification for self- determinism for the countries that disagree.

Also, could this be another way to look at it: you no longer have to be a majority-EU-owned airline to fly between UK and EU country. I.e. UK would not be subject to such EU rules. Of course companies with many avenues for revenue are going to conform to the most strict of them to get all business when reasonable. That doesn't always make it best for citizens.

<comment><USER15> Most countries have a distinction between "domestic" airlines and "international" airlines that both protects the domestic airlines and regulates them more closely.

If you consider the entire EU one country from an airline perspective, this makes sense.

<comment><USER14> Sure, I acknowledged the "most countries" aspect specifically to avoid these comparisons and focus on the content. I wonder, in current times, if the policies remain more for security or economic reasons. Regardless, my comment is less about that these laws exist and more about lack of country-level sovereignty for those that disagree (regardless of how you consider the EU) and whether it can also be beneficial to the UK to be free of such a law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _Whilst 100% of the 'economic rights' to Iberia's revenue and profitability > are owned by IAG, it turns out that 50.01% of Iberia's 'political rights' > are owned by the El Corte Ingles department store chain._

Does the EU have a legal concept akin to beneficial ownership [1] or control? Iberia seems to claim it is economically owned by IAG but that El Corte Ingles has a majority of its voting rights.

At face, that would seem to solve the EU's issue with a no -EU owner. Whether ECI can veto anything IAG wants to do is the real question.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_ownership)

<comment><USER17> Yes, and it's used all over the place in EU corporate law. In most cases I've seen it applied (as a EU-based founder) to money laundering, taxation etc.

I'd be curious to see how this construction pans out. I bet it's been a good deal for the lawyers involved. They surely got paid well for figuring this out initially and will get paid again for testing it in the courts. So much for growing future revenue potential.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm surprised that Iberia considered this whole Brexit situation back in 2011. Smart move, but the EU could still just ruin the plan...

<comment><USER19> ICAO Air law rules date from 1949. Airlines are super aware of these treaties/rules whenever ownership changes hands. It's not like they thought about brexit as a particular scenario, it's more like, lets make sure the airline we're buying is actually embedded legally before stumping up the cash for it.

<comment><USER3> I imagine the notional Spanish control was originally intended more to protect their status as a Spanish company under Spanish law...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seems like they have followed the rules, if not the spirit of them, since well before Brexit became a thing. Given that even the popular airports in the UK are owned, in large part, by a variety of non-EU interests I'm not sure how anyone can really argue the point from a legal perspective.

Edit: typo</comment>


The Jobs book - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2011/10/27/theJobsBook.html <comment><USER2> It's hard for me to know why I should care that Winer doesn't like the book.

It's true that the book is not written by someone with a deep understanding of technology, but this is mostly a story about Steve Jobs the man, and not technical detail. What comes through in the book is that Jobs was a very difficult and troubled person with a tremendous energy to try to do things 'right' (for his definition of right).

I've found it a very enjoyable read. Here you have a book written with the cooperation of a man who knows he's dying and wants to talk about his story. It's an interesting book because it's not a hagiography nor is Jobs making excuses. Early in the book he says straight up that he behaved poorly towards his parents and Lisa Brennan-Jobs and at the same time can't quite recall stiffing Woz out of money for the Atari work.

<comment><USER3> Glad you enjoyed the book.

And of course there's no reason you should care what I think.

Can't think of a single reason. :-)

<comment><USER4> I like your suggestions for a more tech savvy bio, but like the grandparent I think Isaacson has done a pretty good job. I totally agree that so much of the story has become rehearsed myth that it's kind of annoying to see it regurgitated here and there although, to give one example, I think Isaacson does a great job of dealing with the relationship between Woz and jobs when so many others simply accept Woz's evolving "standard version".

<comment><USER3> I didn't say you shouldn't read it -- I didn't even say I wouldn't finish it myself. I just said why it was painful for me to read it. And why the story is so well-rehearsed, and how the myth has replaced the actual events. So many people are reading so much more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote (and think).

<comment><USER5> Can you give any concrete example of where Issacson's apparently shoddy reporting has led to a well-rehearsed myth replaced the actual events?

Instead of complaining about how non-insiders keep trumpeting up "bullshit", help shed light on the truth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is some truth to what Dave is saying here. I felt the author made an attempt to romanticize Jobs life to appeal to a wider audience. Starting with the first chapter, where he says 'Abandonment, Special, Chosen' were three words that played a big role in defining Steve's character. And then he goes on to subtly downplay Steve insisting that it actually did not matter.

What is wrong with Steve just making intelligent decisions about products, than attributing it to scars from his childhood? Nothing, except that it isn't as interesting.

In Dave's article, what I really liked was when he said they weren't really all that special. That is so very true. Real life heroes in the tech industry may not be that heroic. They don't need to be, at least to some of us. Sometimes I feel some of the most successful people in our industry (like Steve, Zuck, BillG) are actually peers, who had somewhat better intuition, better timing, better business sense; they certainly did a few things better. But definitely not beyond the comprehension of some people (though, not me) who comment here.

And there are of course people who are actually heroes to me, not merely peers who do a lot better. For example Scott Aaronson, though I understand very little of what he writes. I just know that even if I had chosen a different path in life, that stuff would still be way beyond me.

Don't know if this made any sense. :)

</comment><comment><USER7> _The ladder we chose to climb was a very short one, unlike the ones the reporters climb. To get to the top meant convincing one or two people we could make a contribution._

IMO, this still applies to software. That is why the whole debate to stay or drop out of school even exists. You don't see lawyers, accountants, doctors, or journalists for that matter debate on the merits of school to advance their career. If you write code, consider yourself lucky to still be living in this "golden period" where just a little skill and ambition is all you need to make an excellent living doing enjoyable work.

<comment> wes-exp To be fair, lawyers, accountants, and doctors all face strict professional requirements to be degree holders. As such, debating the necessity of a degree serves no practical purpose in those fields.

The decreased need for education in software engineering shouldn't be used as an indicator of its competitiveness. On the contrary, one could argue that is actually _more_ competitive, because anyone can enter the field at any time.

<comment><USER7> Exactly - Accounting as an example had a _much_ lower bar of entry, similar to programming today. (See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen> -"Hey Arthur Andersen, your a bright kid, you should come work for us") It is very possible programming follows a similar path requiring more and more professional requirements to get a ticket to play.

<comment><USER8> You have to be a CPA to sign certain kinds of reports that investors depend on and to do certain kinds of audits, but there is a lot of work in accounting without any profession-wide degree or certification requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _We were young and stupid, and the world told us we were the super-exceptional people that Jobs apparently believed he was until he died. That's what makes this so hard to read. We weren't that special._

Dave Winer is an exceptional person but I don't like how he writes as if he was a complete equal to Steve Jobs. Just because Dave Winer doesn't think of himself as special, doesn't mean Steve Jobs wasn't special.

The people that think they are super-exceptional, are often the ones that end up being super-exceptional.

<comment><USER3> Of course when he was alive we were complete equals.

Do you know of a mathematical formula that allows you to compare two whole human beings?

To think otherwise is an exceptional form of hubris. And of course that extends to you and to everyone else who comments here.

And now that he's gone, I'm more of a person than he ever will be. I believe that's the sad truth of what death means, Sean. Gone is gone.

<comment><USER10> Even the conviction that any two people are "complete equals" does not lead to the conclusion that any two people's legacies will be equivalent. It's not difficult to see why a biography, romanticized or not, was written about Steve Jobs.

But of course there's really no such thing as "complete equals". Put me in a foot race with any other healthy 35 year old, or compare my oil painting output with that of any trained artist, and you'll quickly see why.

<comment><USER11> > But of course there's really no such thing as "complete equals". Put me in a > foot race with any other healthy 35 year old, or compare my oil painting > output with that of any trained artist, and you'll quickly see why.

Ah, well that's a bummer. You know, it's funny, when you only read someone online without any face to face context, you kind of mentally fill in a profile of them that probably has no bearing on reality. I had you mentally pictured as something from the Age of Pericles, a mix of track and field style athletics, a little painting, a little sculpting, a little philosophy, a little music, a strong understanding of people, a thorough writer of both poetry and practical arts, a solid craftsman, a strong orator with a bent for rationality and a nuanced sense of justice, and successful in commerce and trade. This is how you've come across in writing, to me at least.

<comment><USER10> Picture Pericles after a lot of beer and pork. Take away any artistic talent. Don't let him shave.

<comment><USER11> My mental picture did indeed have a robust, Antiquity-style beard.

<comment><USER10> A beard involves grooming. Ratchet your expectations down even lower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Reading the PPS in Winer's post about who should write a Jobs book made it clear to me that I think I will like this biography. I honestly didn't think anyone liked "Breaking Windows".

</comment><comment><USER13> Dave Winer doesn't seem to like anything, does he?

<comment><USER3> I wrote two pieces today, the other was about something I very much like.

<comment><USER10> Is the other thing you very much like the Harvard Gazette piece explaining the importance of podcasting and crediting you with its invention?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Walter Isaacson wrote the definitive biography of Einstein, so I believe he can grasp the technicals. The reason the book is not overly technical because like Apple itself, it's better to put people in front of technology.

<comment><USER3> Actually I think he misunderstood what programmers and hardware engineers do. And he had no grasp of the creative process of tech, which is presumably what the book is about.

<comment><USER10> I thought the book was about Steve Jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _We weren't that special._

It's silly that you would write as if you were a peer to Jobs. Only a handful of people were, people like Gates, Ellison, Grove. Even those guys aren't special in the big way Jobs was. It's not required that you like him to acknowledge his special place in the tech world.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is like complaining that T. J. Stiles didn't know enough about trains to write a biography of Cornelius Vanderbildt.

One tends to get the sense that any time Winer writes something negative, his real concern is that people aren't paying him enough attention.

<comment><USER3> "One tends to get the sense that"

I like your honesty. You know you don't know what you're talking about, and you have the guts to say it.

<comment><USER10> I obviously can't read your mind. I can only report the perceptions of someone who hasn't slavishly followed your career, but has had occasion to read many of your blog posts as they're submitted to places like HN.

<comment><USER3> Therefore you are an expert?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Stating that "The ladder we chose to climb was a very short one, unlike the ones the reporters climb" is kind of bullshit. Dave is a blogger who feels like bloggers are the new news reporters, and that news reporters would be as great as him if they would only grow a pair, or something. But reporting the news is not easy. For most reporters it's like bringing a spork to a machine- gun battle, every single day of the week.

This is not a book about Apple and it's not a book about technology. It's not supposed to be "The Soul of a New Machine." It's about Steve Jobs. Did Dave not look at the cover before he started reading? It's all right there.

<comment><USER17> I'm pretty sure he was talking about software development there, not blogging.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I was talking about developers. But I appreciate the other guy standing up for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to know how Dave Winer expects a new biographer to get the same amount of access to Steve Jobs as Walter Isaacson did. It's hard to interview someone 40 times if, you know, you can't.

<comment><USER19> By "source materials" presumably he means the raw transcripts of the interviews, etc. Which doesn't seem too likely but it's at least possible.

<comment><USER18> And under what obligation is Isaacson or his publisher supposed to give the raw transcripts of any interviews he did with anyone for the book?

<comment><USER20> I would expect he is under no legal obligation. But he ought feel a professional obligation to history that others may be able to use the recordings/transcripts to draw their own conclusions. He is a biographer, after all; he never got to interview Einstein, he had to rely on the records of others that were preserved. That doesn't mean the transcripts must be released immediately, but I would expect that others will eventually have access.

<comment><USER18> How often does this actually happen? I'm not altogether that knowledgeable in this area, as I am neither a biographer nor a historian. But I don't know where the "professional obligation to history" comes from. He's making a commercial product, not doing a research paper for a public university.

And sure, it'd be nice to see his source material eventually. But I'd rather see the coherent package of his research in a narrative book form rather than his notes. I'll trust Isaacson to tell the story of Steve Jobs through his own interpretation, as that is all that a biography can be.

<comment><USER20> I'm not an expert, either, and I don't know of much precedent for interviews like this with an individual author being publicly released (say, on the web, rather than in a university archive), but private archival materials are used by historians and biographers all the time. I don't know whether Isaacson or his publisher own the rights, but I'm sure others will ask for access in the future.

I'm not sure about characterizing a biography as a "commercial product"; although although it is the source of the author's livelihood, and the publisher is a for-profit entity, it is a complex entity as a product. The author depends in this livelihood in having access to materials from others, it is not unreasonable to think he may reciprocate in some circumstances. In any case, in future years (after the initial sales peak of the bio), releasing the source documents may even cause a revival of interest that helps residual sales.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's an interesting take by someone who has been involved since the early days of personal computing. I have not read the Jobs book yet but I have been reading Dave's stuff since sometime in '98 (His writing used to be the second result when searching for scripting) and he is always good for an interesting perspective.

ps. Thank's to the mod's for removing the negative editorializing from the submission title.

</comment><comment><USER22> What happened to Dan Kottke? The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to get into it.

<comment><USER23> I'd like to express my interest in this as well if someone could please share. I keep seeing it mentioned passively.

<comment><USER24> Kottke was a close friend to Jobs and an early Apple employee; when the time of the Apple IPO came around, Jobs denied him any stock options. Wozniak, on the other hand, gave shares to employees he felt had been left out, including Kottke...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's a good book, I think, but Dave is right that it gets repetitive at times, and the storytelling is a wee bit exaggerated. 20% is about Steve being an asshole and 20% is about him being a spiritual and emotional kind of guy. Luckily, the remaining 60%, thank heavens, has some actual content.

</comment><comment><USER26> i wonder what minimum change of circumstances would have derailed jobs' success. what would he have become had wozniak not tolerated him?</comment>


Surprisingly, Younger Users Care More About Privacy - <AUTHOR> http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/01/11/surprisingly-younger-users-care-more-about-privacy/ <comment><USER2> I don't really find it that surprising. I think average privacy concern will be just about same for all age groups. It's just that older users don't feel that online privacy is as important as the real world equivalent. For most that I know, it's not even a consideration.

For younger users, on the other hand, the line between real and online is much more muddled hence the same concerns apply to online data as well.</comment>


NewsTrust and HuffPo partner for John McCain 'news hunt' - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnewmark.com/2008/06/newstrust-and-h.html <comment><USER2> "The goal is to help readers learn more about McCain and make more informed decisions as citizens."

Is that _really_ Huffington's motivation? Whatever you feel about any candidate, it's always worth noting which way you're being herded by your news sources, especially if they have a veneer of neutrality or objectivity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Offering good journalism about the opposing side legitimizes Huffington Post... there surely is fair and balanced journalism about McCain out there somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a good wisdom of the crowds type technique for a news credibility startup and it is good PR at the same time.

<http://www.newscred.com/> is a startup from a founder on this site that is also working on news credibility.</comment>


Why SysAdmin's Can't Code - <AUTHOR> https://cuddletech.com/?p=817 <comment><USER2> I've been more "devops" then SA for the past 10 years and some of us can code and at a very decent level.

Having said that author states they're the first to admit they can't code. That's true, and I've even heard it from very competent that coders.

If you say you can code to a software engineer that can open the door in interviews to obnoxious, dick measuring obscure code questions which frankly isn't fair.

The trend is for ops roles to be a lot more code heavy and if I'm interviewing a true software engineer for a devops role it would be unfair to ask some obscure BGP routing gotcha or delving deep into Linux internals no normal person would encounter on a daily basis.

Just my person gripe..

</comment><comment><USER3> I haven't had the peers to know if I'm a strong coder, but the last time we filled a position, I'm certain none of the candidates was a strong coder. I tried to get each of them to just read a 200 line NON(!)obscure perl program, and no one seemed to make a serious effort. I'm a peer, not a manager, but I suspect we were trying to get a Bay area employee at Research Triangle Park prices.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do traditional sysadmins even exist anymore? But if they do, the answer is probably because those that can code become software engineers.</comment>


Intelligent People Will Be the Death of Us All - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@chalmers_brown/intelligent-people-will-be-the-death-of-us-all-f9d4ff93c832 <comment><USER2> Reminds me of an argument I had with my brother. I remember saying and logically ...blah, blah, blah... and him saying well I don't believe in logic. And I remember thinking he wins. How do you argue with that?</comment>


Ask HN: Minimal-bandwidth conferencing for remote education on poor countries - <AUTHOR> In Brazil (and probably elsewhere) we are facing serious issues with remote education. Many students rely on 3G/4G connections with data limits and teachers are having a hard time delivering content.
For video lessons, I have been using ffmpeg to segment and compress lessons with -stillimage and the lowest bitrates possible to distribute via WhatsApp, as some ISPs don't charge for data on this popular platform.
However, me and my peers have not been able to find a solution for minimal-bandwidth conferencing, sharing only audio and still image content (slide lessons) and running on cheap Android phones and tablets. Do you know such tool/plataform, have any suggestions for alternatives or open source projects that could be easily adapted for this purpose, or can actually build a minimal solution that is suitable for this? If so, you could be really help people in poor countries.
It saddens me so much that people are being left out, poverty is on the rise and education is just being neglected. Hope I can get some good use of the intelligence pool here! <comment><USER2> Hey! It saddens me too that education quality is suffering because of this.

I am working on a tool to solve the exact problem you have. It's called vlokit [0]. It's an async video chat platform. You can easily upload video, screenshare, audio. It's almost instant. Your kids can go through the content and reply back with audio/video/screenshare within the same thread.

We have seen educators in Asia use our platform to conduct complete classes on vlokit. Kids access our platforms on cheap android phones. It's great because we're have mobile-friendly website and the content works amazingly well on low-bandwidth connections as well.

Let me know if you need help setting this up. I think it'll be incredibly useful for you.

[0] [https://vlokit.com](https://vlokit.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> Fully offline is great, because students get the full experience, and access it repeatedly without cost -- so lots of pre-downloaded material. Downloaded HTML and still images, or pdfs are great for mobile phone viewing

Then chat apps such as email or messaging systems are especially great, because when the network drops, nothing is lost and the conversation can resume later

I would suggest teachers do this, possibly with telegram channels or similar. That way the class can have a group to participate in and share problems. Could this be the kind of confrencing you're after. It is as low bandwidth as it gets, resilient against network failure, and allows real time chat in a group...

Often more directivity is wanted though.... One option might be teachers recording audio-visual videos (their voice + preferably blank background slideshow as the visual). Which I think you're already doing

Another option is voip. Which is already heavily optimized for low bandwidth. Something like [1] or the team chat options computer gamers use. Onething to consider is if it is possible to record the audio session for later download -- since it is frustrating for students who can't get in reception range or if the audio drops out -- but a download might let them catch what they missed. If that would be useful to you, I don't know. But I suggest browsing the voip options, since there are many

I'm a programmer. But none of my suggestions involve programming, or creating new apps. There are good reasons for this. 1) It is a lot of work. 2) Students would need to download and learn them. 3) Existing apps they know fix some of these problems really well

One final suggestion. Try zoom, with video disabled, and the shared screen view for teacher to draw on. If this doesn't work for you, then probably no custom app is going to either

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumble_(software)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumble_\(software\))

<comment><AUTHOR> Those are all good ideas, I am mostly going the fully offline route, however some teachers lack time (too many classes), experience or equipments to produce good content.

VoIP is new to me, I will look at that. I also found that Microsoft Teams has policy settings to limit bitrates for specific users, so that might be also an option to limit bandwidth for students with data limits (between 3-6Gb/month in basic plans around here).

<comment><USER3> Maybe record the teachers as they teach; as a way to produce content?

There may even be a good-enough auto voice->text transcriber for Portuguese?

A double bonus would be having the teachers review the recording/transcribing -- as some teachers (if not all of us), improve after checking recordings of what we do

Blessings on your efforts

\--

I was sitting beside a very impressive Ecuadorean teacher today, with refugees

Sometimes larger change is need for society. Something like having older children teach younger children has been effective in recent history

My most effective technique to-date, has been to pray

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23895211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23895211)</comment>


What are some good hardware startups to work for? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> My two favorite hardware startups are Pebble ([https://getpebble.com/](https://getpebble.com/)) and Upverter ([https://upverter.com/](https://upverter.com/)). Pebble makes the Pebble smart watch, and Upverter makes cloud based hardware design tools.

<comment><USER3> If you're looking to work at pebble, send me an email. We're hiring for various engineering, manufacturing, ecommerce, and data science positions. email@example.com

<comment><USER4> Not trying to make this haternews or anything but do you see a lifespan for pebble after the Apple watch is released?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Crazyflie - [http://www.bitcraze.se/crazyflie](http://www.bitcraze.se/crazyflie)</comment>