Tesla's $110,000 Model S is now Norway's best-selling car - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/new-cars/auto-news/teslas-110000-model-s-is-now-norways-best-selling-car/article14739655/

<comment><USER2> The article fails to mention a bunch of other benefits of owning an electric in Norway:

\- No annual road tax and virtually no sales tax

\- You're allowed to drive in the bus lane which is huge for suburb communters.

\- Free communal parking

\- Free passage through tolls and ferries

\- Free charging at communal charging stations (they're everywhere in Oslo)

<comment><USER3> Besides: \- Norway has the highest taxes anywhere on buying and using gas cars. Horsepower and weight is taxed heavily. \- Urban sprawl around the biggest cities has created some of Europe's worst traffic congestions. It's a huge benefit to be able to use the bus lane.

Teslas high market share in Norway is also a symptom of some of the challenges we face here in Norway.

<comment><USER4> I find the idea of "urban sprawl" in Norway hilarious.... I'm from Oslo, but live in a London suburb that is larger than the "urban sprawl" around Oslo. Norwegians for the most part has no idea what proper congestion looks like.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, when I visited Oslo we walked at a leisurely stroll from Maridalsvannet just outside the city back to our city centre hostel in a couple of hours (me, my sister and my 60 yo mother). In about the same time in London I can get from the Thames to Tufnell Park, not even close to the North Circular :)

Of course, many of the world's capitals pale in comparison to cities like London or NYC...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Electric cars in Norway:

\- Three percent of all cars sold in Norway are electric, the same number in US is 0.1 percent.

\- The number of electric cars on the Norwegian roads today is 7 000, and the total amount of cars is 2.4 million. The neighboring country Sweden has 4.4 million cars, but only 600 of those are electric.

\- About 40 percent of those who own an electric car also own a gasoline car.

\- The goal of the Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association is to have 100 000 electric cars in Norway within year 2020.

\- The Norwegians have earlier tried to produce electric cars through the company Think Global. For the fourth time in twenty years, the company filed for bankruptcy in 2011.

<comment><USER7> > \- Three percent of all cars sold in Norway are electric

Even better, that number is already outdated - the article states that the Model S has a 5.1% market share already.

It should be noted though that the Norwegians can afford to be environmental - they make ridiculous amounts of money from their offshore oil fields. Also, they have plenty of cheap electricity from hydro.

<comment><USER8> That is a misnomer. Oil accounts for about 22% of our GDP. Fact is, GDP per capita is only so much higher than that of the US, about 10% I'd say.

We can "afford to be environmental" the same way any country would be able to afford to be. The real difference is our wealth distribution which is leaps and bounds ahead of most of the world, here in Norway a higher percentage of the population are simply able to afford the car and that is what we're seeing in Tesla's market share.

<comment><USER9> Also, having access to cheap oil/your own oil is probably not the best stimulus for electrical car ownership, so I think there's definitely more going on than that :)

<comment><USER10> Buying gas in norway is way more expensive that in the US.

Edit: About $9.30 per gallon (using 14.83 nok per liter in dollars per gallon via google)

<comment><USER9> Only because it is placing heavy taxes on fuel (which I think is a good thing). Compare with other oil-producing nations, which don't do this. Also, the US has really low gas prices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A big reason for the Tesla Model S being the best selling car last month is that a lot of people have been on waiting lists for months to buy one, and they only started selling them in August. Not to say that it won't keep selling well with all the benefits specific to electric vehicles in Norway.

</comment><comment><USER12> I believe this article is inaccurate. A lot of people preordered the Model S, and a lot of those were delivered and paid for (upfront payment excluded) in September, which caused the Model S to be positioned in the top of the chart.

</comment><comment><USER13> I hope to see the Telsa become a big hit in Australia.

Right now I couldn't have one since my apartment complex wouldn't support charging - however if the government ran a subsidy program to retrofit complexes I would definitely look at buying one!

<comment><USER14> Me too, though given the stance the government has taken on climate change and investment into the future, it's unlikely such subsidies will be significant or fast coming.

And retrofitting apartments would be great, but again given the track record with the NBN rollout, you really have to ask how committed they are to infrastructure projects. Also brown/black outs happen during summer as the grid struggles to keep up with the increased demand. Adding EC to that? Yeesh.

Tangent: I'm all for EVs, but paradoxically they are really quiet - as in silent if they're coming up behind you. If you've ever been on the footpath, turned casually to cross the road only for a cyclist to rush past you out of nowhere it's really frightening like someone jumping out and yelling "boo". Can only imagine once we transition away from fossil fuels.

<comment><USER15> Now imagine tens of thousands of mostly quiet, non-polluting cars on a very crowded high way. It would be amazing for the environment. And for the neighboring residential areas ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is the direct result of what happens when similar specced petrol cars are just way more expensive (taxes) than electric cars.

So if any government wants to embrace the use of ecars, this is one way to do it! Governments of countries with a healthy car industry would be hesitant to do this though.

<comment><USER17> As a fan of Tesla I'm still skeptical whether tax incentives are the way to go - the reason is that I'm not yet convinced that battery powered cars are a sustainable way to replace all the petrol powered ones.

In general it seems to me that internalizing all costs of transport is the way to go. This would mean higher fuel costs, possibly slightly higher cost of electric vehicles and also higher cost of public transport. There should be a clear incentive for people to move as close as possible to where they work, or to work from home. Some incentives to steer the economy in that direction could be helpful at first, for example subsidizing company housing or directly subsidizing people to move close to their job (the higher amount, the closer the family moves), offsetting high rent in places with lots of work.

<comment><USER18> My issue with tax incentives is that they are given without regard to income level of the buyers. I do not believe tax incentives should be given to the companies that produce the cars, only to the public who buys them and then only weighed against income level.

Get the middle class into these electrics, if the rich want them there is no reason the middle class should subsidize their purchase

<comment><USER19> Be careful with that line of reasoning. Rich people respond to tax incentives more than the middle class in a lot of respects (because they have more economic freedom), and some of the draw for the upper middle class is that the Tesla is a rich person's car/status symbol.

Making the rich move back to MB S-class and Porsche 911s and you take away at least part of the allure for the numerically larger upper-middle class.

Plus, realistically, do you really want to differentially encourage a $75 K/yr household to buy a car that's not economically rational/healthy for them to buy? You want more Teslas on the road via incentives? You have to give the incentives to the people who can afford them...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> My assumption is, that Tesla gets a lot of "free" marketing because they're the only "real" electric car company for now.

I'm really happy for them, but i believe that as soon as Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi etc. can affort to make "cheap" but great electirc cars, nobody will talk about Tesla anymore.

In germany, for example, it's really expensive to own a car (insurance etc.) but it's even more expensive to drive one. You need to pay between 1,36 and 1,85 Euro per Liter (Cars have between 40-70 Liter tanks) and people _still_ don't buy electric cars.

My guess is, that many people trust those big companies and don't want to buy a expensive car from a company they never heard of. As soon as all those german companies have a good mass-product solution for electric motors, they can scale them from an Audi A1 to an Audi A7 and people will buy them instantly.

<comment><USER21> > I'm really happy for them, but i believe that as soon as Mercedes Benz, BMW, > Audi etc. can affort to make "cheap" but great electirc cars, nobody will > talk about Tesla anymore.

People said the same thing about Google providing the first usable web search, and their dominance (and the Microsoft would eat their lunch when Redmond finally got around to it).

I feel the same way about Tesla - the Model S is merely a product that embodies the company's vision and skilled workforce. Tesla may not yet have a patent thicket, but they probably have key battery-specific patents as well.

They are busy disrupting the way cars are sold as well (mainly because, in order to succeed, they have to)… an area that sorely needs disruption.

All of this means that by the time the other manufacturers get around to building a Model S equivalent, Tesla will have both moved on to better product as well as entrenched their brand as the leader in the space (not to mention whatever lock-in that Supercharger stations produce).

Perhaps this will be diminished in Germany which prides itself on it's car manufacturers, but even Japan gave into the iPhone eventually.

<comment><USER22> It may not be that Tesla is extremely good, but that the others are inconceivably fumbling in creating decent premium electric cars. And may do that for many years to come.

Just look at non-apple laptops' trackpads...

<comment><USER21> You may look at the competition as completely incompetent, or you can look at the winning team as having a great defensive play.

You would think by now that Tesla would have been body-slammed by some regulatory agency or paid media shill (though that John Broder hit piece came pretty close)… maybe Tesla just has good defense in that space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Many versions of this story have already been posted:

[https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tesla+norway](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=tesla+norway)

</comment><comment><USER24> I was in Oslo last May, saw my first Tesla Roadster... They tell me it's actually a pretty cheap car - or rather, all other cars are crazy expansive - because of taxes on internal combustion cars...

<comment><USER25> That, and the USD is quite cheap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > One of those secondhand buyers, 27-years-old financial consultant Anders > Langset, said a regular car with similar performance and engine size could > have cost him up to 2 million crowns ($330,000) because of the punitive > taxes Norway's government levies on cars with big, gas-guzzling engines.

Wow, if that's correct, then good on both the government and people for trying to move in the direction of gasoline independence.

I guess in Canada and the US we are too intertwined with the car industry to do something similar.

<comment><USER27> Gasoline independence? You realise that they have large amounts of oil?

<comment><USER10> And they sell that gas to _other_ countries for an nice profit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think Oslo consistently comes in each year as the most expensive city to live in -- so at $110,000 it may also be Norway's cheapest car.

</comment><comment><USER29> Does anyone know what's behind this?

Is it that people don't buy a lot of cars in Norway? Average income is significantly higher? Different income profile of car buyers specifically? Some kind of social effect, like prestige?

<comment><USER30> Yes, Norway is very, very wealthy. This is a fairly recent development... [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=norway+wealthy](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=norway+wealthy)

<comment><USER31> I don't think it's that recent, I feel like they've been pretty 'wealthy' for a while. Interestingly, NOK-EUR YTD hasn't been that great [http://ur1.ca/fuyz4](http://ur1.ca/fuyz4)

<comment><USER32> Recent as in only a generation or so. It the 60s and 70s it was far behind much of Europe and the US.

<comment><USER33> Yup, it begun when oil was discovered in Norway. So oil + good location (Europe) == success :)

<comment><USER34> More specifically: oil + ability and political willingness to exploit it yourself and share the profits among all citizens.

As opposed to selling exploitation rights to investors to enrich a kleptocracy.

<comment><USER33> I have an impression that they're are saving oil/profits for some possible "black day" in the future. And, the "profits" which are shared among all citizens come from high taxes. I might be [partially] wrong though.

<comment><USER34> Well, a large part of the oil revenues are put into an investment fund because the oil isn't going to last forever. Profits of that fund go into the public budget, though.

According to Wikipedia, there are discussions about how much of the oil revenues should be saved; opponents of using more of them directly say that it would just lead to inflation.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> One of the main reasons is that ordinary cars are heavily taxed, while electric cars are not taxed at all. This makes a Model S cheaper than most BMW or Mercedeses for example.

Add to this that electricity is cheap, while fuel is expensive. Also, Norway's wealth is relatively evenly distributed while at the same time the GDP is high. All these reasons makes it affordable for a lot of people to Buy a Tesla Model S.

While I have seen a few Model S on the road, I can't commute to job without passing a quite a few Nissan Leaf. Those have been sold in large numbers here (3% of all cars sold first half of 2013).

</comment><comment><USER22> Take this with a grain of salt as I read it as a blog comment, but it's been argued that this is only a temporary thing, because of a pile up of orders for a long time and now a sudden delivery.

</comment><comment><USER36> Keywords: Punitive taxes.

</comment><comment><USER33> Interesting. One fellow Norwegian client was assuring me - the country is rich, but people don't have money. I understood this as one of the perils of socialism.

<comment><USER37> Norway is not a socalistic country, that's just absurd (unless you are on the right wing of US politics - where everything left of for-profit healthcare is socialism/marxism/communism).

Our cost of living is often absurdly high though, and the increased wages can't completely make up the difference (it's AWESOME for travel though). Therefore we can't afford as much "stuff" as Americans can, but I think it's worth it due to increased quality of life the Norwegian system brings.

<comment><USER38> > I think it's worth it due to increased quality of life the Norwegian system > brings.

I visited Oslo a few years back, very briefly, and indeed it did seem like a very nice and well run place.

But no amount of nice social systems will buy you sunshine, so I'm still here in Italy.

<comment><USER37> True. I despise the Norwegian winter. I'll get through it this year, but I'll likely find somewhere warmer to be next winter.

The summer in Norway on the other hand is magical. I didn't realize what a huge privilege is it to be able to chill/drink beer/barbecue in the park the whole evening and watch the sunset at 23/11PM (or the whole night in the north of Norway) until I lived in Thailand for a year (where the sun always goes down around 18-19).

Sure, it's always warm there, but I really missed the long summer nights. Living far away from the equator has both its advantages and disadvantages.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mathematician Disproves Hedetniemi's Graph Theory Conjecture - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematician-disproves-hedetniemis-graph-theory-conjecture-20190617/ <comment><USER2> Beautiful article, though not sure why two examples are introduced (students x instruments, and jobs x hobbies).

The abstract for Shitov's paper is also a gem of brevity, here reproduced in its entirety:

"The chromatic number of G×H can be smaller than the minimum of the chromatic numbers of finite simple graphs G and H."

(And, of course, the first reference in the paper is co-authored by Erdős.)

<comment><USER3> I'll take 2 excellent examples over a definition and one opaque and unmotivated example any day (which is what you get in a lot of papers).

<comment><USER4> The text and the examples are good enough, but I'm sure just one example accompanied by some nice illustrations would be much more immediately illuminating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My lesson for today:

"Sometimes, the reason that a conjecture is very hard to prove is simply that it is false."

Worth to see:

[https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/sansation-in- the-m...](https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/sansation-in-the-morning- news-yaroslav-shitov-counterexamples-to-hedetniemis-conjecture/)

Congratulations to Yaroslav Shitov!

</comment><comment><USER6> > Network coloring problems, which were inspired by the question of how to > color maps so that adjoining countries are different colors, ...

> Do four colors suffice to color any map? — took more than a century to > answer (the answer is yes, in case you were wondering).

I know very little about graphs and found this bit surprising. After some searching I found out it is called the Four Color Theorem.

Does anyone know of a resource that provides a more intuitive explanation for this for non-graph-theorists?

<comment><USER7> It required a notoriously hard-to-simplify proof, which required computer assisted brute force analysis. But an intuition is that a complete graph with four nodes is planar, and five is not. A (3,3) bipartite graph is also the smallest non-planar bipartite graph. That's probably good for answering "why would you suspect 4".

<comment><USER8> To save laymen a google: A complete graph is one where all the nodes are connected. A planar graph is one that can be draw in the plane without two lines intersecting.

<comment><USER9> Notably one you can draw on either a flat piece of paper or a sphere. On a torus, you need up to 7 colors.

<comment><USER3> Yep, and the proof that any graph that can be drawn without crossings on the torus can be properly colored with no more than 7 colors is vastly easier than the case for graphs drawn on the sphere/plane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Long time ago I failed to solve this conjecture. Nice to see it have been solved. I shared some email with S. Hetdetniemi about some special cases. Good old times.

<comment><USER3> What results and special cases did you work on?

<comment><USER10> I cannot remember. I emailed him about some results, he said they were interesting, but later I discovered those results were already published. I told him : I will throw them to trash. Very impolite from my part!, that must be 20 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is absolutely huge. Steve Hetdetniemi is one of the giants of the field (also a great guy, to boot). If he agrees the result is true, I believe it. Now, off to read the paper.... :)

<comment><USER11> He commented (in the article) that he is delighted the resolution has been found and that "it can be explained in two sentences".

<comment><USER12> The construction can be explained in two sentences, the argument proving this is a proper counter example not exactly I think !

<comment><USER13> Although not that much more even for the proof... the paper is 2 1/2 pages, and almost half of that is introduction and references.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Looks like this is the paper:

COUNTEREXAMPLES TO HEDETNIEMI'S CONJECTURE

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.02167.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.02167.pdf)

<comment><USER15> This is linked in the first sentence of the article, FYI. (Though I guess it's easy to miss regardless…)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Tangential: I don't know anything about graph theory but I'm intrigued by the student-instrument duet example.

Is there a way to include probability/fuzz into the tensor products? In other words, how do you account for non-binary strength of connections between nodes? Like I'm 80% good at piano but 50% good at oboe.

<comment><USER17> > how do you account for non-binary strength of connections between nodes

The adjacency matrix of a graph normally has entries only 0 or 1.

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

Generalize the adjacency matrices to include values _between_ 0 and 1. Typically, you'd impose some normalization condition like rows and/or columns sum to 1.

Then compute the Kronecker product of matrices to obtain the graph tensor product.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is it true to say that a graph can be coloured by _k_ colours if and only if the largest fully connected subgraph has _k_ or fewer members?

For example, is saying a planar graph can always be coloured by 4 colours the same as saying a planar graph can never have more than 4 nodes that are all connected to each other?

<comment><USER19> They're not quite the same. Certainly if there are five vertices all connected to each other then the graph can't be four-coloured. But the converse isn't true.

[https://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2012/07/a-graph-t...](https://standardwisdom.com/softwarejournal/2012/07/a-graph- that-requires-5-colors-but-does-not-contain-k5-complete-graph-on-5-vertices/)

<comment><USER18> Thanks, that's a really great example. It definitely feels non trivial to come up with an example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've heard vaguely of the coloring problems before, but this one quote is confusing me, can someone explain what I'm missing?

> Even the question that launched the field — Do four colors suffice to color > any map? — took more than a century to answer (the answer is yes, in case > you were wondering).

But what if my "map" includes a node that has more than four neighbors? If there are only four colors, then one of the neighbors must be pidgeon-holed to share a color with the node? Are there constraints on how many neighbors a node can have?

<comment><USER21> The constraint is not on the number of neighbors directly. If there is just one node (say, A) with 4 neighbors (say B1, B2, B3, B4), we can color A red and B1, B2, B3, B4 blue. It only becomes a problem when all nodes are interconnected (i.e. the graph is complete). So, the result does imply that graphs which are not colorable with 4 colors are not planar. In particular, the complete graph (where all nodes of the graph are connected) with 4 nodes is not planar.

<comment><USER22> The complete graph with 4 nodes is planar, and obviously can be colored with only 4 colors -- that gives every node a unique color.

The complete graph with 5 nodes is what isn't planar. (That, and the complete bipartite graph with 3 nodes on each side.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Could somebody clear up my confusion with these two statements that appear contradictory?

"Do four colors suffice to color any map? — took more than a century to answer (the answer is yes, in case you were wondering)."

and

"Returning our attention to colorings in which connected nodes are supposed to be different colors, we have no guarantee that the five colors in our palette will be sufficient to color the graph G"

How can it be that 4 colors is sufficient for any graph, but for our hypothetical graph G we can't be sure that 5 colors are sufficient?

<comment><USER24> Four colors is sufficient for a _planar_ graph, but insufficient for a general graph. A planar graph is any graph where the edges can be drawn in such a way that they only intersect at the endpoints (there is a more formal algebraic definition but that helps with the intuition).

<comment><USER23> Thank you! That makes complete sense when I consider the 4 color example of a world map. I didn't even consider that most graphs would have "overlapping borders" on such a map.

An extra thank you for apparently creating a new account to assist me. (I think that's what the green username indicates, at least).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> From the article: "Now that mathematicians know Hedetniemi's conjecture is false, the natural next question is just how false it is..."

And from Stanislaw Lem works (Cyberiad): "Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind."

Time to read some Lem again?.. ;)</comment>


Bithacks - <AUTHOR> http://www-graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html

<comment><USER2> I love stuff like this. Another great collection of bit fiddling hacks is Henry S. Warren's excellent book, "Hacker's Delight" - <http://www.hackersdelight.org/></comment>


My reply to a recruiter who asked for my CV - <AUTHOR>

Hey Matthew,
I really am glad you want to help me find a good opportunity to work in London. But I feel we're starting on the wrong foot.
I do not maintain a CV. And if I did, I would only reflect some information that is already public on LinkedIn. I do make some effort to keep my LinkedIn profile updated. I am a firm believer that CVs are thing from the past, they have been deprecated in favor of: - LinkedIn, besides containing the same information, there are other benefits like social factors. e.g. groups, recommendations, connections, - A public github/codeplex/bitbucket (or any other kind of social coding platform) profile where one can look at an applicant's real work. We're talking real code on real projects. - A personal motivation letter - Probably the single most important piece of an application. Considering these factors, I do not see any value in a traditional CV.
This rationale may only apply to Developers, Programmers and Software Engineers. But it is after all the field I'm interested in.
If you seek some additional information that I do not have public in my LinkedIn profile you can feel free to ask for it.
If you need a document with my experience and education, feel free to use LinkedIn to export my profile to a PDF.
Cheers, <comment><USER2> If a recruiter wants to give an employer a list of candidates, and logically wants to give info on those candidates all in the same format, then the CV works. Sure it doesn't work as well as LinkedIn profiles, as CVs come in many shapes these days, all trying to outdo each other in style. But not everyone is on LinkedIn yet, and CVs are still the established norm.

If I had a candidate refuse to give me a CV, and told me to look at his LinkedIn profile, I'd assume he was a dick, and hard to work with. That candidate would be filtered out straight away. Not because I think I'm being too stubborn about wanting to see a CV, hell LinkedIn can make a CV for you, but because the candidate was being stubborn, and rude.

It sounds like you have the advantage of being sought after in this case though, and so some power does reside in your hands to be careless with your approach to job offers. But I wouldn't suggest that everybody takes after your example, for some a job offer is a precious thing, and promoting yourself in the format desired by the employer is a length those people would happily endeavour to fulfil.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, there was never a concrete job proposal. And I should be clear, that If my priority was to get the job then maybe I would not have been so honest in my reply and would have made an effort to send him a pretty CV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Expecting a Linkedin page to work like a CV is like expecting your company homepage to work like a landing page. Sure it might meet the technical requirements of supplying the reader information they need, but your conversion rate is going to suck.

Your CV is a piece of marketing material and you should treat it as such.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. I admit that if I weren't so lazy maybe I'd spend some time creating a nice CV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It really depends on the specific situation. If a recruiter approaches me directly, then the ball is in my court. If I have to approach a recruiter, then I assume that they have an upper hand (usually).

I do not send over my Resume/CV to a recruiter who approaches me until he gives me the following:

1\. Who is the end client and what location

2\. What is the min. rate OR can he match my desired rate ?

3\. type of job (fulltime,contract , right to hire etc?)

4\. What is the client looking for a.k.a job description? (This one is usually vague unless the recruiter really understands the domain. But I can figure it out if it is in my specific domain of expertise)

Once he gives me these 4, I become very responsive if I am interested and give him everything he wants including the boring Resume/CV and the whole nine yards.

</comment><comment><USER5> You make a case for the redundancy of CVs but then at the end point him in the direction of what is effectively a CV. If you're going to point him in the direction of a CV substitute, I would just attach a copy to the email to save the hassle of him going to your Linkedin profile.

<comment><USER6> There are ways to reduce the redundancy, like using LinkedIn as the primary data store and then setting up a macro to generate your resume from that data store. This way the CV reflects all of the updated made to the single authoritative source, yet can be formatted into a more traditional CV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the logic behind this response is valid, but in my experience with recruiters 9 / 10 of them would not go for this. (Would love to hear how it works for you!) Recruiters are not the same as dealing with a company directly, they are paid agents with certain rules of decorum.

The real point here is that companies that rely on recruiters generally have something broken about their culture. For a small firm, their management is probably not plugged into the industry, or they have become bureaucratic, lazy and/or process oriented (eg big firms) and probably not a great place to work. But you probably already know this, hence the letter.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. That is the point.

I am curious too, but I think this one will not reply. If he does, i'll make sure to come back with an update. ;)

<comment><USER8> Are recruiters so loathed in the industry?

<comment><USER7> For a job seeker, there are a decent number of superstars out there who do great work, know all the job openings at all the companies you care about, are in contact with decision makers and help fill big jobs. (If you want a big corporate job, that can be a great way in.) There just happen to be many more recruiters who are few or none of these things.

Not that different than the world of real estate brokers, barriers to entry are relatively low so anyone can try it, but only a proportionately small group of people are truly effective at it.

On the hiring end, a really good recruiter can definitely help a company fill specific positions, particularly in a new competency, and I've met some great people that way (but personally no hires).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When I got a lot of CV requests from recruiters I took a similar yet much more childish approach to your mail.

I created a PDF with my name, email and a link to my linkedin-profile. That way I could see if they had a look at my profile, most did and I actually got some good laughs and a couple of interviews with it.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think that's a great answer.

The CV approach is old and doesn't fit the the current market (for software engineer at least). You are what you do, and that is the most valuable thing a company should look for in new employees.

I hope the recruiter's mentality starts to change soon.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't see myself doing anything like this. Help them help you.

<comment><USER12> Most recruiters don't want to help you. Helping you is just a by product of helping themselves. I had one that demanded a text document resume (instead of a PDF). A few days later he sends it back padded with a bunch of nonsense (including a lot of false skills).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> LinkedIn profile instead of brain

</comment><comment><USER14> Also, profile on Stackoverflow

</comment><comment><USER15> Dear Applicant,

while I appreciate the originality of your response, I'm not particularly interested on following on this offer anymore for several reasons:

1) I don't like people forcing me to subscribe and check their profile on some third party site, no matter how prevalent it is. It's for the same reason why we don't force Facebook logins to all our visitors' throats and offer them the ability to create a new account with us instead.

2) I asked for one thing and you offered me another, plus your idea why it's not a good thing to ask for. While I appreciate your idea and counter- arguments, I also want people that work for me to do what the duck I've told them to do in the end. If you had included the LinkedIn link ALONG with a CV it would have been much better appreciated.

3) "If you need a document with my experience and education, feel free to use LinkedIn to export my profile to a PDF". Really? And if I asked you to setup a fault-tolerant PostgreSQL based datastore you would have told me to "feel free to open an AWS account, start several instances, install PostgreSQL on them and configure it"? We SURE started on the wrong foot here.

4) "A public github/codeplex/bitbucket (or any other kind of social coding platform) profile where one can look at an applicant's real work. We're talking real code on real projects."

I would n't go as far as to call your half-finished NodeJS/MongoDB tinkering and yet another mustache clone "real work on real projects".

5) "This rationale may only apply to Developers, Programmers and Software Engineers. But it is after all the field I'm interested in."

Sure, be I also hire for other 5,000 open positions in this company that are not "developers, programmers or software engineers" and I want a bloody CV document to put in my document management system alongside theirs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! Thanks for the feedback,

"I would n't go as far as to call your half-finished NodeJS/MongoDB tinkering and yet another mustache clone "real work on real projects" "

I believe that most of the time, even the silly little pet projects, because their're made out of fun and passion and not because is paying you can provide a better insight into one's programming habbits, practices and skills. A traditional CV tells you _nothing_ compared to a "half-finished" pet project.

"I also want people that work for me to do what the duck I've told them to do in the end"

Remember, you came to me, asking if I am interested in your "offers", as soon as I say "yes, please tell me more" you assume I work for you? I don't. Thanks, but no thanks. You should not assume I am at your service because you privileged me with your invitation.

"Sure, be I also hire for other 5,000 open positions in this company that are not "developers, programmers or software engineers" and I want a bloody CV document to put in my document management system alongside theirs."

Hey, it's your job. I don't complain to users about how they should use web apps to make my work easier. I'm not going to tell you how to do your job, and don't ask me to do it for you.

Sorry if I came across as a dick. I assure you I did not mean to offend you. I just feel that if I was recruiting, I would like some feedback as harsh as it may be. I figure it is always better than being ignored. Otherwise, I'm just sorry I wasted our time.

Best regards Mr Recruiter,

<comment><USER16> I immediately stopped reading at "their're".</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do Firefox containers do that Safari doesn't? - <AUTHOR> I haven't found any answer to this online but figure HN is the place to find out.
If I use Safari out of the box with third-party cookie blocking, default uBlock settings, and Pi-hole, what do Firefox containers add to the picture from a privacy perspective? Which specific types of tracking would be covered by containers and not these other tools?
Note: I'm not asking about UX or security unless it also has direct implications for privacy. <comment><USER2> It lets you sandbox your activity - for instance, preventing google from linking your activity for a work account with that from a personal account.

It also adds some confidence that vulnerabilities won't be used to track or crack sensitive interactions. For instance, if I log into my bank only in one container and browse untrusted sites only in another, I can be more confident that my bank account won't be subjected to a XSS attack.

And then, some sites (AWS, I'm looking at you) make it really really difficult to manage multiple accounts from a single browser.

Finally, Safari's extension ecosystem and developer tools kind of suck. This way I've got access to Firefox's.

<comment><AUTHOR> What I can discern from your answer is that the specific type of tracking stopped is based on XSS and nothing else, is that right?

And if that's the case, then if I am someone who is primary worried about being tracked by ad networks, then I don't really need Firefox containers. Is that fair?

<comment><USER2> Only if you're confident your ad blocker blocks them effectively. Also, it isolates cookies (so for instance, Facebook can't tell you've visited sites that embed its share script if you visit them in a container where you never open Facebook).

But yeah, containers are about isolation more than privacy. It's like having multiple independent browser instances (each of which has a name and remembers your state and logins and such for just its own instance, even through restarts) at once.

<comment><AUTHOR> That makes sense, thanks.

So a concrete example would be that a container would block a Google Analytics script from setting a first-party tracking cookie if, for some reason, my ad blocker weren't already blocking that script.

(My understanding is that, with third-party cookie blocking, cookies are already isolated, but not if a site has set up first-party cookie tracking. That tracking can only be blocked at the script level.)

Is that about right?

<comment><USER2> Containers don't block cookies.

But a cookie set in one container is available only in that container, not in other containers.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is true, although that says nothing about the ability of whoever provided the cookie to track you across containers through said cookie. I believe this is the basis for all cookie-based tracking.

What I am gathering from this discussion is that containers are really not targeted at privacy as a use case, unless you have an ad blockers that isn't effectively blocking specific scripts from setting tracking cookies.

<comment><USER2> How would it track you across containers with the cookie when the cookie set in one container doesn't even exist in another?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not completely sure, but I would guess that first-party cookies for third-party ad/analytics services have this ability.

<comment><USER2> They don't. You need to be able to read a cookie in order to track the user.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Programming in an Interactive Environment: The Lisp Experience (1978) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.ida.liu.se/ext/caisor/archive/1978/001/caisor-1978-001.pdf

<comment><USER2> The thought of lisp coming back to life as other forms like clojure, makes me wonder if in a couple of decades a modern form of c++ will be trendy. In that universe, the current hate of java and c++ will be the cool stuff.

Is this the technology keep evolving, or is it us keep changing our minds?

<comment><USER3> Lisp is like Gothic architecture that can and has stood the test of time. C++ is more like Brutalist architecture that had its appeal and still appeals to some...</comment></comment>


OpenMoko branches out with new $99 WikiReader device - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/13/openmoko-branches-out-with-new-99-wikireader-device/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was really really hoping the OpenMoko phone wouldn't have been such a flop AND cost a ton. My guess is you need the resources (more that just money) a company such as Google can provide to currently develop and popularize an Open Source phone.

Any genius here capable of shaking up that market?

<comment><USER2> How about the Nokia N900? It's a fully open Linux phone made by a company with a lot of resources (and the need to push the platform, in light of Symbian's failure to live up to expectations).

<http://maemo.nokia.com/n900>

<comment><AUTHOR> Any ideas on cost?

<comment><USER3> about 600$ - phone is available for pre-order on amazon.

Nokia N900 Unlocked Cell Phone/Mobile Computer with 3.5-Inch Touch Screen, QWERTY, 5 MP Camera, Maemo Browser, 32 GB--U.S. Version with Full Warranty by Nokia

<comment><USER4> Supposedly, it ships on the 19th. I pre-ordered. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Free app on a device I already carry around all day vs. $99 single use-case app... no brainer.

<comment><USER6> Exactly! This would be great for those people that find computers too complicated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Anybody interested in this device? I don't see who would want to buy it?

<comment><USER8> If one could lower the cost to $20 or lower, and include WiFi with an open mesh mode, then I could see a market for this. (But it would be grade school children!)</comment></comment>


New Magic Keyboard, Magic Trackpad 2 and Magic Mouse 2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/shop/mac/mac-accessories <comment><USER2> I wonder if the Magic Mouse 2 feels different, or has anything different other than an internal battery (which to me is a drawback...right now I just use my own rechargeables that I can easily replace and continue using my mouse without having it plugged in to anything). As for the dimensions...it sounds like it is smaller...also a negative as it MM1 feels on the small side IMHO. But the 'features' in MM2 look to be the same as MM1...just a more expensive refresh.

<comment><USER3> The extra $10 for the magic mouse (and I believe the keyboard too) does get you a lightening cable thrown in the box too</comment></comment>