Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/09/cycling-is-key-to-safer-healthier-more-vital-cities/570139/ <comment><USER2> A 2 key points about well designed bike lanes that aren't bought up enough are:

1\. raised / structural separation between the road and bikes path.

2\. bike paths can be used for just about anything that is not a car/motorbike or a pedestrian. Skaters, skate boarders, mopeds and bikes can all share a common separated path way.

I have tried biking in Boston and it is a nightmare. Bike Lanes marked on the road are taken as suggestions by cars, rather than a proper space for bikes. Taking the side of the road causes cars to pass me too closely and taking a lane draws verbal abuse ( happened 3 times in 1 month...then I stopped). Technically Boston suburbs allow bikes to ride on empty sidewalks, but that draws silent stares and again occasional verbal abuse.

In addition to that , everyone from pedestrians to car owners seem to be complaining about the new bird bike scooters and boosted boards. With major ride sharing companies trying to move to 2 wheelers and community shared biking hubs becoming a thing, giving all the problem children their own space would be an excellent solution.

All of these alternate means of transportation run at about the same speed and can't cause fatal damage on collision. Definitively separating them from cars should significantly improve safety.

IMO, biking might be the solution that allows for zoning laws to be lax, as increased density wouldn't affect traffic as adversely. The increased density should also cut commute times. Aren't those literally the 2 biggest complaints about tech hubs in US ? The decreased pollution and healthcare benefits just the cherry on top.

<comment><USER3> I'd add that a significantly under-discussed element of safe biking infrastructure is safer intersections. My city has lots of bike lanes that are sufficiently wide (and many that aren't) and no consideration all at for how a cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection. My commute requires me to cross several lanes of traffic to get from the bike lane to the left turn lane on a road where cars go ~40mph - there's no way to do that without a significant risk of getting clobbered. That's to say nothing of the potential for someone hooking right through me when I go straight at an intersection as apparently no one checks their side mirror before turning.

Unfortunately even cities that consider biking infrastructure often seem to ignore how to connect bike lanes in a reasonably safe way. The only city I've seen that does this is Portland, OR and they make heavy use of separated paths to do so.

<comment><USER4> The best practice that I'm aware of is:

        * AT AN INTERSECTION
        * Dismount and walk the bike across the cross-walk, as a pedestrian.

IMO we've engineered intersections all wrong to begin with. There shouldn't even be cross-walks there (they should be mid-block dedicated services, placed where pedestrians WANT to cross and __VERY CLEARLY__ marked as existing; not the dinky lights many cities go for (Seattle comes to mind)).

I don't know how to handle bikes and turns at an intersection, separation of level would be far more ideal.

<comment><USER5> This is what I was taught when I was a kid and it's really dumb.

1\. Bikes can't go on sidewalks, so you're already screwed one way or another.

2\. It's a huge hassle to get off and on at every intersection.

Of course there's a problem with the bike acting like a vehicle too, even if it can keep up with traffic. Stoplight sensors don't register bikes so you end up waiting for a car to show up so it can trigger the sensor and change the light.

<comment><USER6> > _Stoplight sensors don 't register bikes_

If you're a cyclist and stopped on a red, waiting for it to change, you're seriously breaking ranks. :)

I mostly just bolt for it when the coast is clear.

There are places where I wait, but if it's keyed to a sensor coil, I'm definitely not waiting for a vehicle to arrive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A city that is bike-friendly is good, but a city that is walking-friendly is better. The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? It is easily possible to build a neighbourhood where three generations of a family can live, work, attend school, shop, and more within walking distance. Walking is the simplest, most universal, and most natural mode of human transportation. All it requires is a compact pattern of development.

Walking has low requirements for infrastructure. An uneven sidewalk is no problem. An unpaved trail through the woods is fine for most people. I have seen people posthole through blizzards in a walkable neighbourhood when nobody could bicycle or drive a car.

For the individual, there is no mechanical equipment to maintain, no parking spot to find; they just need some decent footwear.

More people can walk than can/will ride a bike. Many old people avoid biking due to poor balance and strength, but can walk without issue. People that cannot walk, such as people in wheelchairs, also benefit from the short distances between destinations. The blind can walk, but cannot ride a bike.

<comment><USER8> > The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that > even be necessary in day-to-day life?

Uh... because I want to visit friends? Go see a show? Explore? Take a job that's not immediately next door? There are a million reasons why.

You know what cities were insanely walkable? The endless concrete enclaves of Khrushchyovkas in the USSR. Walkable does not mean pleasant.

<comment><USER9> Biking isn't just a means of transportation, it's also a means of recreation - on weekends I bike to get outside the city, tree lined country roads make for a nice relaxing ride.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In most cities, especially in America, there's a vicious cycle: 0) Cycling is dangerous because there are too many vehicles on the road 1) There are so many vehicles on the road because everyone knows it's dangerous to cycle 2) Go to 0

Breaking out of that loop requires building safe infrastructure for cycling, like indestructable cement dividers between bike lanes and vehicle lanes or no-vehicles-allowed-in-<large area of city> days

<comment> village-idiot And creating the infrastructure is wildly unpopular, because typically it involves either taking lanes away from cars, or slowing them down.

The initiative to reduce car-pedestrian collisions in LA has stopped because the drivers put pressure on politicians to stop slowing traffic down. Advocates are implying (and sometimes outright saying) that a few dozen deaths a year are an acceptable price to pay for a shorter commute. That's how far we are from solving this problem.

<comment><USER11> > Advocates are implying (and sometimes outright saying) that a few dozen > deaths a year are an acceptable price to pay for a shorter commute.

Why are you implying that this is faulty reasoning? I mean traffic deaths would be virtually eliminated if the speed limit across the board was 15 mph. But I know I would rather drive 65 because the risk is worth it -- and over a large population that increase in risk turns into real tangible deaths. Same with any risky behavior that we all engage in every day.

Let's do the back of the napkin calculations, take Columbus Ohio as the example of an everycity. Columbus had in 2014 750,000 commuters and say your average person makes $25/hr ($55k annually).

Say you were able to shave on average 1 minute off their commute.

($25/hr) * (1hr/60m) * (1m) * (2 trips/work day) * (261 work days/yr) * (750,000 people/trip) = $163,125,000/yr

How does a few dozen lives compare to $163 million dollars of value? Is slowing down traffic worth it?

<comment><USER12> Theoretical/in-a-vacuum numbers like this always make me suspicious; it isn't as if workers would have $163m less at the end of a year any more than companies would have $163m less in accounts. That isn't how life works.

EVEN if it did - what if, as traffic were slowed and bike lanes and walking lanes were put in, commuter life improved? Society appreciated the new living space and they got healthier and spent less on fuel and cars? That new economies were enabled by new, healthier, cheaper forms of transport?

<comment> village-idiot Also, self consciously trading other people's lives for a few minutes a day is gross.

<comment><USER11> Assuming we're still going with 1 minute a day saved which was an intentionally low estimate we're still talking about 12 years worth of time saved over the course of a year. Those minutes add up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My wife has been biking to work for a couple of years now (I work in an industrial zone - I don't trust the awareness of large truck drivers - so I don't follow suit) and it's really revitalized her joy for the city. Her commute has become something she loves. Because of this new found passion we've both bought new bikes, have started passing our weekends by experiencing the city from the view of a bicyclist, and while it can be frustrating finding a place where you're bike can go (our city has been building bike lanes and mixed use paths like crazy which help a great deal), it's been incredibly enjoyable to bike to those places one normally wouldn't go due to the car traffic and the pain of parking. Last weekend we put 100 km on over a days travel just getting out and enjoying the city, we've also taken day trips out to neighbouring municipalities to better explore.

The problem with all this of course is that it snowed here yesterday, and that's just the first sign of a trend that's going to last until April.

<comment><USER14> Oh, are you in Edmonton? I've been cycling 365 since the bad old days, and it's great to see all the new cyclists out all seasons with the city's commitment to keeping the paths clear of snow. Cycling in winter really isn't much more hardcore than walking outside in winter, you just gotta dress for it and slow down a little. Honestly I prefer cold to rain. I look at Vancouver's cyclists and think 'you guys are committed!'

<comment><USER13> Do you have Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Harry and the Henderson's type bike? Or skinny tires and determination? The commute is about 45 minutes in the summer, so in the winter that's a long time to be cold.

<comment><USER15> The only cold problems I have with long distance biking in cold weather are caused by poor circulation in my hands and feet. I inevitably get too warm in my core within 15 minutes of commencing biking and start unzipping my outer layer. To keep my head warm, a balaclava and helmet suffices. It's the cold hands that are the worst though; even in thick gloves they still get too cold. I might have to start trying chemical warmers.

<comment><USER16> There are gloves with electric heaters that you can charge via micro usb.

<comment><USER15> Thanks, I should look into that. Hands getting cold is really the biggest problem for me. Those same gloves work fine for warmth when I'm walking, but it's the holding onto handlebars that restricts circulation to the point where they get too cold.

Note that this is only really a problem below -5C or so; at "merely" freezing I can manage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I love cycling. I grew up in my father's bicycle store and nearly 50 years later, he's still running the business and we've all worked in it at one time or another. I ride bikes around the neighborhood with my kids every day.

With that said, the U.S. is not the Netherlands. Like most Americans, I depend on my vehicle to get my kids to school and myself to the grocery store, which are 4-5 miles away from my house. This country is not predominately compact or dense. Cycling is not the de-facto best solution for every place. [1]

I wish we could stop bringing up Amsterdam with every conversation about bike lanes. I'm all for building bike paths over green space but I don't support the closing of busy traffic lanes to support a relatively small cycling commuter population. It creates traffic snarls, more pollution, and wastes a lot of people's time.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-vista-del-mar- la...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-vista-del-mar- lanes-20170726-story.html)

<comment><USER18> The purpose of building more infrastructure is to get more people on bikes, not just to placate the ones already on bikes. Getting more people on bikes will reduce traffic and pollution, not increase it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nice article, but I fear North Americans just don't care by and large.

I've had some passing involvement with bike advocacy and have been a bike commuter in Los Angeles for the past six years. My impression is that in the early 2000s, there was a flowering of bike advocacy and infrastructure.

But now we've reached the point of resistance where other transport modes are pushing back against any more consideration for bikes. In short, cycling is now big enough to matter but not big enough to win.

I've often wondered if there was an approach other than the incrementalist, go-along-get-along approach that most bike advocacy has taken. The electric scooter startups have changed the transport landscape more quickly than anything else I've seen.

<comment><USER20> I think cycling advocacy is alive and well, but the gains aren't as dramatic, because now they are incremental improvements to what has already been won. You are seeing miles and miles of shared bike lanes going up all across the US. I think back in the 2000's even that infrastructure was a pie in the sky dream. The jump to the next level of infrastructure hasn't taken off yet, but you are starting to see some cities actually invest in segregated bike lanes and bike highways. Since those changes require actual work and not just paint on the street I think they will be slower and take a lot more time, but I see them coming.

For instance, inside DC there was a number of dedicated bike lanes, and even a good number of segregated bike lanes. I could get all through the core of the city on a bike with relative safety, once you got out into the north Virginia suburbs the bike infrastructure turned into mostly painted lines, with a few notable trails and then by the time you hit the outer suburbs there was nothing, but they were starting to put painted lines out as far as Reston, VA ( 25mi outside the city )

<comment><USER19> Bike commuting growth has stopped/reversed in most places in the US in the last couple of years: [https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting- growth...](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting-growth-has- leveled-off-but-not-everywhere-in-the-u-s/)

My worry is that there actually aren't enough people to use the bike infra to justify continued/increasing costs--or at least makes it easy to argue against. For example, there is a bike path next to a new light rail line in West LA (expo line for the curious). I used it to commute for ~1 year and the traffic I observed on it was very minimal considering the cost it must have taken to put in and maintain (lights at night too).

Yeah there are a couple bike hotspots like Portland and Minneapolis (maybe DC?) but outside that, the demand is minimal unfortunately.

<comment><USER20> DC was listed in that article as one of the places that didn't experience that trend so my anecdotal evidence is most likely biased. However I would be interested to see a similar survey done for 2017 and 2018 to see how electric bikes and scooters have changed things. I still see mostly normal bikes on my trips to work, but I have been seeing more and more e-bikes making the trip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm a big proponent of bicycling, not only because of it's health benefits but also because of city-design. Recently there was a poll taken place in my city which proposed reducing lanes to add more sidewalk and bike lanes to a few streets for the added commute time of around 1-2 minutes. As both a driver and a cyclist this is an acceptable trade off. Especially since the proposed streets had previously seen a lot of vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

I think an important part of having a more bikable city is that it leads to a more livable city. My bike ride to work takes me through the south-east part of town which was previously segregated. These areas aren't well-suited to biking, but should be. If you are poor and your car breaks down you still have to have a way to get to work. A car is a hell of a lot more expensive then a bike or a bus.

</comment><comment><USER22> The Dutch cycling culture is worthy of praise, but people frequently forget or ignore a key element of its success: Amsterdam is pancake flat. I live outside of Denver, and my neighborhood is very cycling friendly, but my 8-year old daughter can't make it up the hill on our street without walking.

<comment><USER16> There are many cities that are as flat as Amsterdam and have a similar climate but have a fraction of the cyclists.

<comment><USER22> Right. I don't think the flatness and climate are the sole reason for its success, but they're certainly a big contributor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder how a bike or even public transit is going to replace a car? 1) How am I supposed ro go to the beach with two kids, stuff for picnic and surfboards on a bike or even on a bus?!! 2) Public transit is all good, but have you ever been in a PEOPLE jam during rush hour in a subway? Because I had. And I will take SV traffic jam over it any day.

The truly bad things happen because of radicalism - it should not be bikes + public transit vs cars. It should be a healthy, safe mix of both.

<comment><USER24> It doesn't have to totally replace cars. The ideal is to drop down from a 2 car household to a 1 car household and only use it for bigger errands and trips, or you drop down to a 0 car household and use the money you save on car payments, gas, and insurance to occasionally rent or carshare. The best is for biking/walking/transit to replace daily trips to/from places like work, dinner, downtown, the movies, the park, etc.

<comment><USER25> Right...I'm somewhat of a "militant" cyclist. I think it has the capacity to radically change how people get to and from work if we can shift people's perspectives regarding using them, and build protected bike lanes/highways/trails that reach all over and access public transportation.

I bike two miles to a train station downtown, and I take the train to a stop in a nearby city, bike two miles to work. Sometimes I bike all the way home (20 miles-ish) for a nice, convenient workout. I also get to work from home two days a week. I read books on the train, I have made great friends on the train. This is the best commute I have ever had, and I will miss it dearly if/when my situation changes.

That said, I can never go completely car free. My wife and I like to go hiking in the mountains or go to the coast with our dogs on the weekend. A car is the only way to get there with our pets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Much like Lebron, i recall the days of my youth when i was old enough to start biking around town, 20/30 minutes or more away from home. Felt like a whole world out there and many great memories doing simple stuff like biking with a few friends to the nearest gas station or walgreens and pooling up a few bucks to buy candy and a drink.

<comment><USER27> This fascinates me, the days of near digital-free days. From today it feels empty, but I remember being quite happy (if not a lot happier then). We just enjoyed things differently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm simply never going to support any policy framework that would require me to cycle in Chicago in the winter. I know it's possible but I'm not doing it.

<comment><USER29> And we can talk about how maybe you should because it's better for you, but this brings up a larger issue: when it comes to how whole populations behave, comfort is a factor that can't be totally ignored.

Basically it creates a trade-off. Some percentage of people will decide one way and some the other way. This is going to affect adoption if you try to build a city around this idea.

Incidentally, there are also issues in hotter climates. Here in Texas, it hit 100°F (37.7°C) more than 50 days this summer. And it doesn't get cold at night. You can try to avoid the heat by biking to work early, but even at 6:00am, it might still be 80°F (26.6°C) and humid. So you _will_ arrive sweaty, and if you don't do something about that, you will smell bad all day. (The ideal is if your office provides showers.) You're also probably going to end up taking two showers every day since you are sweaty when you get home.

<comment><USER30> ^ This is precisely why I think biking is crazy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > On a bike, you inherently have to make a physical connection with people. In > a car, you're separated by glass and steel. But when you're out on a bike, > you can actually see everybody, you can say hello to the people that you > meet along the way.

This is an underrated aspect of commuting by bike. I ride 8 miles into San Francisco every day, and more often then not I get a little bit of human interaction somewhere along that route. It might be waving and saying "hi" to a member of the homeless community on the side of the bike path under a freeway interchange, or another bike commuter asking me about my electric bike, or just a driver smiling and waving me through an intersection ahead of them. These small human touches bring joy to me on a regular basis and are one of several reasons why I love my commute.

<comment><USER27> I think that even without interactions, it makes people less ready to be angry, which is a plus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Smaller, cleaner, more efficient transport can help? Small to moderate amounts of fitness will improve quality of life? Less cars will yield less fatalities? I don't mean to poke fun at the article--I'm grateful for it--but this is all obvious to a bike commuter from the rainy PNW.

It's time IMHO that extreme convenience comes at a high price. That is, car access to every city block doesn't need to be the status quo. Make me walk a few blocks if I drive to town, or make me use transit/etc if my car can only make it up to major city boundaries. At the very least, put high incentives in place to keep daily flows down.

There are fair solutions to be found that do not disproportionately different working classes/income levels.

Keep biking.

</comment><comment><USER33> 37,461 people were killed by motor vehicles in the United States in 2016[1]. Whether it's more pleasurable to live in a city or a suburb is beside the point; our only options are to encourage the use of cycling and mass transit, or to condemn 37,461 more people to death every year from now on.

[1] [https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8124...](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812451)

</comment><comment><USER34> Ctrl-F 'Snow' : No hits

I know about Denver and Minneapolis...they both have times where cycling is a non-starter

<comment><USER35> I've cycled through winters with wind chill in the -15F range and up to a half foot of snow on the ground. So, it is more than doable to do in both those cities.

<comment><USER34> Everyone is not you. Can it be done? Sure. SHOULD it be done by a cross- section of the populous?

<comment><USER35> I don't see why it couldn't be done by almost anyone given that they live close enough to work. Anything less than 10 miles is doable assuming you have a good route.

<comment><USER36> >almost anyone

I think that you considerably overestimate the capabilities of "almost anyone"

<comment><USER37> Will power is a capability most people are lacking in, so I guess you are right. Most people have the physical ability, though few realize it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> In Pasadena, we just spent a ton of money trying out the Metro bike-sharing program [1]. Unfortunately, it turns out the key to making a biking culture is not just putting down a ton of rentable bikes. [2]

I'd love to see safer bike highways, but the city doesn't seem able to do more than mark the pavement with sharrows. I understand that Pasadena's urban planning model frequently pits cars and bikes against each other - but, I wonder if we could cut into some of the significant lawn space on each side of the street in order to make bike lanes?

[1] [https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2018/07/09/pasadena-to- pull...](https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2018/07/09/pasadena-to-pull-out-of- metro-bike-share-one-year-after-launch/)

[2] It turns out people in the affluent parts of Pasadena aren't driving because they can't afford a bike.

</comment><comment><USER39> Give me bicycle lanes and I'll cycle to work every day! Force me to share a lane with multi-ton metal beasts travelling much faster than me and I'll just get the bus thanks.

<comment><USER40> > Force me to share a lane with multi-ton metal beasts travelling much faster > than me

That's the problem with the keep as far right as practical law that only applies to bicyclists. For other slow vehicles, it means that they use the rightmost lane available for traffic. For bicyclists, it means that they need to share the lane side-by-side with a car in a lane that's only wide enough for the car by itself or two bicyclists riding abreast.

If the bicycle specific keep as far right as practicable law was repealed such that the cyclist could just use the entire width of the lane they're in, then people riding a bicycle in traffic wouldn't have the lane sharing problem you describe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> In San Francisco one major barrier to cycling is theft. You basically cannot leave a bike for > 1hr. This additional burden means many who would bike (such as myself) no longer consider it an option. I previously biked upto 45minutes each way for work.

> A 2013 report by the city's legislative analyst estimated that 4,085 bikes > worth $4.6 million were stolen in 2012, with the downtown and South of > Market neighborhoods the hardest hit.

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/DIY-crime- fighters...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/DIY-crime-fighters-try- to-roll-back-bike-theft-12502750.php)

<comment><USER42> Buy a sturdy lock ?

<comment><USER6> Cue familiar joke about all bicycles being fifty pounds, if we factor in the lock needed to protect them: a 5 pound bike needs a 45 pound lock, a 20 pound bike needs a 30 pound lock, and a fifty pound bike needs no lock at all.

Some get around this by buying multiple locks and keeping them at commuting destinations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> swingline-747 Davis, CA seems like a bikers' paradise until one visits the Netherlands. "Bike highways" with separation and clearly-marked routes. (Insert holy enlightment sound fx.)

</comment><comment><USER43> Also the electric scooters sure help avoid Uber and Lyft bloat in cities, and getting more resistance than they should, IMHO. Hey SF, might want to consider that. The scooters weren't that messy compared to getting down 2nd street at 9am on any weekday.

Personally I try to OneWheel since I can ride it and pick it up with me. Don't have to worry about it being jacked by the SF petty crime syndicate.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think a big issue is how quickly things are changing in terms of what vehicles are used. There is an explosion in commuter vehicles now, both of the rentable and privately owned variety. I think the rentable ones are probably experiencing the most rapid change.

Motorized scooters, semi-motorized bikes (the ones that "flatten hills"), "hoverboards," motorized skateboards along with those one-wheeled self- balancing things that I want so badly. :) Haven't seen motorized roller skates in the real world but I'm betting on them arriving soon.

And then there are the self driving cabs that we know are coming soon. Combined with the rentable scooters and bikes, these can allow mixing it up in interesting and practical ways.

It seems like thinking of cars, bikes and pedestrians as 3 distinct categories is not going to work for long. Maybe a bit fanciful, but I could almost imagine rainbow stripes drawn on the roads, with red being for cars, purple being for pedestrians, and if you're using a motorized skateboard or a bike, you'd tend to ride in the greenish area.

</comment><comment><USER45> Effect and side effect seem mixed up here. What is great about Amsterdam isn't the bikes, it's the lack of cars. Yes adding infrastructure for bikes takes space away from cars so the results appear one in the same. But perhaps focusing instead primarily on car reduction we'd find better ways to plot more livable cities.

</comment><comment><USER46> Cities are so varied, and have such complex contextual traffic flow variations, that comparing two is an unhelpful oversimplification. What works for the Netherlands will not work for Boston. What works for Osaka will not work for Bangalore.

<comment><USER47> I think that's an incredibly defeatist attitude to take, and the perfect excuse to not improve anything or try to learn from what others have done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'd love more bikes in our town, but it's not very flat. Is there some data on how much flat does the town have to be to get around on a bike? (I guess electric bikes change that equation a bit, but they're still quite expensive.)

<comment><USER49> hopefully carbon fiber continues to get cheaper, because having a lighter bike really does make a difference on climbs. that said, anybody can go up a hill in a low enough gear(!), but psychologically it can still feel like a lot of work to pedal so much and go up so slowly. so part of it is learning how to ride. for that reason i agree hills are a (surmountable) barrier to entry and probably hillier places have less cycling. everyone quotes Amsterdam as a great model, but its flat geography is easily suited for cycling -- a better model would be a place that has challenging geography AND still succeeds with great infrastructure. i do think things are moving in the right direction though, people are starting to wake up and realize that there are countless personal and social benefits to cycling

<comment><USER50> Carbon fiber only makes a marginal difference in total weight. Especially when you factor in all the extra stuff that bike commuters frequently carry (laptop, lunch, lights, lock, etc).

<comment><USER49> it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%.

there is a perceptual quality that is often neglected when calculating the differences purely in terms of physical forces.

we agree a lighter bike will only be marginally faster in terms of speed on the ground but to say a rider doesn't notice a 1% difference in their speed requires an appeal to perception not to physics. those few seconds of a commute count.

i think that's why big granny gears that could roll a tank up a hill still don't solve the problem -- they just feel too slow

<comment><USER49> another way to think about it is this --

you could say to someone, "don't complain about your bike -- just lose 10 lbs and you'll get to your destination faster than you would by changing your bike".

yeah ok, but like losing weight is easy (actually it is if you bike a lot, hehe).

but if you put that person on a walmart beater and compare their commute with a carbon bike, they sure as hell will report a difference, even if the clock doesn't.

the point is that we are concerned with getting people on bikes and moving their bodies, not about time trials (which ironically is where fast bikes are marketed, because the premise is that it doesn't matter for everyone else. maybe it does!)

does it matter enough to spend 10k on a carbon bike today? well that depends on your finances. but when they are cost competitive? yes, please.

<comment><USER50> Walmart bikes are miserable to ride because of the horrible groupsets, not the frame material. Carbon fiber bikes are available now for much less than $10K, but if you're on a tight budget it's usually better to pick a bike with a cheaper metal frame so that you can get a more expensive groupset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Velomobiles like Organic Transit's ELF and Better Bike's PEBL have most of the benefits of a bicycle and a car.

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

[https://organictransit.com/](https://organictransit.com/)

[http://www.better.bike/](http://www.better.bike/)

</comment><comment><USER52> Once you delve into the article, it becomes clear that it's the changes in the town's infrastructure and urban form that have to be done to enable safe and worry-free cycling that result in a more livable space, where mobility goes up within the town. Cycling isn't the cause; rather, it's an effect of an urban form that treats them as valid form of transport, and doesn't force them to gladiate among heavy cars that go five times faster, or confine them to narrow strips where unprotected pedestrians walk five times slower.

The 'shared space' concept, where traffic-calmed cars are in close proximity to bikes and pedestrians, relies both on traffic devices, the emergent slow speed of traffic to act as a barrier to overtaking, and on the psychological inhibition of drivers to not flaunt the idea and drive like madmen anyway. It also trades physical separation of pedestrians for an emergent one, which is a raw deal for some disabled people (e.g. those with impaired sight, hearing, or mobility), or those with small children. This is a tradeoff that some communities don't find acceptable.

But for the majority of people for whom it works, mingling car traffic, bike traffic, and pedestrian traffic in close proximity has the advantage of decreasing the utility of high speeds that could otherwise be attained by cars and increasing the utility of lower speeds and non-motorized forms of transport. This effect encourages the town's urban form to be compact and provide employment and services close to residences or transit nodes (like train stations), which leads to the cityscape familiar from the Netherlands.

Areas that were developed with the assumption that the sole choice of transportation will be the automobile face many barriers to retrofitting other modes of transport as a realistic choice. This is because density is a key metric: a car covers 20 times the distance in the same amount of time as walking. If there is no employment or services within a walkable radius, any sidewalks or bike lanes are largely for recreation, and don't offer a meaningful everyday alternative to driving. This is why dense areas like CBD Vancouver can mull over these changes, but doing the same in Surrey is a lost cause. In the US, where urban employment is a mix between those living there and those commuting by car from far away, the streets of cities are still dominated by cars that are trying to cover distance in little time. Market Street in San Francisco is chock-full of transit and pedestrians and stoplights, which prevent it from being an urban highway, but other streets in SF are far too rapid to safely host pedestrians or bikes, even though the city around it was clearly built at a time when slower transport was the norm.

</comment><comment><USER53> I have also to recommend longboarding here. Way funnier and easier to carry with, and commute time is pretty much the same in the city.

</comment><comment><USER54> I am under the impression that the author never really biked in Amsterdam 5:30pm from center to south in a week day.

</comment><comment><USER38> On a related note, "Making Space for Cycling" has compiled an excellent guide on bike-friendly urban development/renewal. [1]

[1] [http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org](http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org)

</comment><comment><USER55> I live in a regular house in the burbs. Not a spring chicken age-wise. Here's what it would take to get me into denser housing -

1) Privacy - sharing a wall or floor should NOT give my neighbors privy to my arguments, love-making, or guitar playing.

2) Personal transportation != pedal-pushing. I gave that up when I turned 16. I'll take a scooter.

3) Reliable public transport for long-distance travel. Meaning well- maintained, to useful destinations, and not subject to wage strikes (probably meaning automated.)

</comment><comment><USER56> There are some technology fixes available: Autonomous braking that recognizes cyclists should be mandatory, and retrofitted to trucks traveling on city streets. Bikes could also be fitted with cameras that could be used to issue traffic citations for passing too close.

</comment><comment><USER57> Not in any city with a real winter (-10F to 20F)

I already loath going into my ice cold car and waiting for the heat.

<comment><USER49> the exercise actually warms you up quite a lot! you really just need protection from the wind, for your hands in particular. a quality set of mitts or pogies for extreme cold and ur good to go :)

</comment></comment><comment> village-idiot Anyone who's believed that the key to sustainable futures is simply swapping out ICE for electric motors simply is being wishful at best, willfully difficult at worse.

The biggest problem I have with electric cars is that they continue to encourage low density low efficiency suburbs with hours long commutes into the high density cities. This is economically unsustainable, roads are expensive, and will only get worse as EVs pay no gas tax and weigh more than their ICE cousins. Considering that America's road system is in bad need of repair and we don't have the will or funds to fix it, doubling down on them is not a wise call.

Also, it's not like producing an EV is a carbon neutral act.

<comment><USER17> The ship sailed on low-density suburbs 60 years ago. We're past the point of return on those. Outside of San Francisco, Manhattan, and downtown Chicago, most people live in the 'burbs and that's not changing. We will be living with this housing stock for decades--if not centuries--to come. It's best to engineer around that reality, not to daydream of an Amsterdam-like utopia that will never happen for 99% of this country.

<comment> village-idiot You are far too certain. 70 years ago a prognosticator wouldn't be considered insane to say "the ship sailed on cities 50 years ago, Americans live in downtown and that's not changing". These things do change, often quite quickly.

Personally, I think the Boomers are in for a big shock when they try to sell their homes for a "fair" price, and discover that Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes. Once that happens the market (and politics probably) are going to do some really freaky things.

<comment><USER58> > Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes

I see this often. Very few people want large homes when they are either single or don't have kids.

As soon as you do have kids and they start to grow to an age where they want to play outside, having space to run, play sports, be away from traffic, have their own room, etc gets a lot higher on your priority list.

You can also get a suburban home without it being "large" and still get a lot of space to go with it. People used to get "starter homes" and then periodically trade up if/when their incomes increased or they had some equity in the home.

It seems like the biggest barrier to this today is that people want to go straight to the HGTV home. I can't tell you how many people I've known who, straight out of school, overextend to the most expensive house they can afford.

If you want more house, for your money...that usually means buying farther away from density.

<comment><USER59> Yes, but fewer people are having children, which reduces the demand for suburban living.

The suburbs also have less attraction for me as a parent. In the old days you could let your kids roam a suburb freely - now you can't. So why not live in a city? You have the same restrictions, but also a lot more distractions such as free museums.

<comment><USER60> Why can't you let your kids roam in a suburb?

<comment><USER61> I suppose my kids could technically "roam" but they won't have anywhere to go that's interesting. Most kids can't even walk or bike to school in the suburbs.

<comment><USER58> Interesting is also very different for a kid. Kids get interested in bugs, the woods, forts, climbing on trees.

<comment><USER62> In the suburbs I've lived in, there are no forts, woods, or trees that you can climb, without being told off by whomever owns the property the tree is on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Emitting toxic gases into the atmosphere is a crime against others. Therefore, using (most) internal combustion engines is a crime. We have a lot of criminals today.

</comment><comment><USER64> When you cycle, you are putting a great deal of trust into each and every car that drives by you.

I'll pass.

<comment><USER65> The same argument applies to driving any vehicle. e.g. When you're driving a car and you cross a junction/intersection - you're trusting the stopped drivers to not run a red.

<comment><USER64> No, not the same level of trust. Fender bender vs crippled.

<comment><USER16> You never use highways either?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> So nice to see the sensible and pragmatic Dutch going without the silly, soulgutting bicycle helmets. Not to mention the usual orgy of blinkenlights and assorted fluorescent garments.

<comment><USER67> I'm curious, why do you consider helmets to be "silly" and "soulgutting"?

The blinking lights are essential in order to be seen in twilight and dark conditions. Hi-viz also aids in this.

<comment><USER66> First, and quite anecdotally, I have never once in some fifty-odd years of cycling been even remotely close to a situation of "yeah, I could really have done with a helmet there". _Fifty-odd_ of course does indicate that I'm of a generation less accustomed to safety symbolism in all aspects of life, I'll grant you that. Second, I enjoy my bike and use it more or less daily. I wouldn't - neither use nor enjoy - if I were forced into donning some strange kind of hard hat that I didn't wish to don. I like my choices to be my own. The helmet still _is_ a choice where I live, but I clearly see that changing within not too many years. And anyone I see wearing a helmet is casting a vote in that direction. They are - and should be, of course - free to do so, but please don't preach the other way at me. Third: I have worked as a professional driver of both trucks and buses. My very clear experience is that the most dangerous cyclists are often among the ones decked out in full safety regalia. It's as if some people feel that having paid their dues and performed the ritual, they are thereby exempt from risk. Strange phenomenon, but all too real.

Yes, I also detest airbags. But wear my seatbelt religiously.

<comment><USER67> In ~25 years of cycling, I've been in two situations where a helmet most likely saved me from severe concussion and probably a fractured skull. Neither accident was solely my fault. A bicycle helmet is not "safety symbolism", it has verifiable benefits in reducing the severity of head injuries. Your phrasing and choice of words seem to suggest that people should just "harden up" and "things were better in the old days", which is a highly problematic position to take, one which smacks of rose-tinted glasses.

By your reasoning, motorcycle helmets and protective clothing is also pointless. After all, I've had no accidents in ~10 years of motorcycling, so the safety gear must be completely pointless? Nevertheless, I would never get on a motorcycle without proper gear, because I've seen the damage that can happen. I've also seen the head trauma that can happen in a bicycle crash, so I wear a helmet.

I'm not sure why you think people wearing helmets are casting votes for mandatory helmet laws. I'm certainly not a proponent of such laws, but I am very much a proponent of wearing a helmet, in order to reduce the severity of injuries. I am certain the vast majority of helmet wearers agree with me, we put on the helmet by choice, not because we want to force others to do the same.

The most dangerous cyclists are the ones constantly on their phones and/or with loud music in their ears. Same as car/truck drivers. The hardcore lycra- clad cyclists go rather fast, but they're also highly aware of their surroundings. Your experience from the limited visibility of a truck driver's seat is leading you to false conclusions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I can't afford a condo in the big cities, I'm not sure how riding a bike will change that? In fact it will probably make it worse as people move to the cities to ride their bikes, which will make real estate there even more expensive.

Low density and low efficiency means low cost. Efficiency doesn't maintain itself.

<comment><USER69> I don't think it has to be like that. We subsidize the suburbs by spreading the cost of roads across everyone. It's a hidden cost that makes living in the suburbs much cheaper than it actually is to society. At the same time we increase cost in high density areas with zoning regulations.

<comment><USER16> At least here in Germany you also get tax breaks for long commutes. Something like 30 cents per kilometer per day iirc. We also subsidize parking spots in cities. Often they are free and if they aren't they are much cheaper than the space they consume.</comment></comment></comment>


Free Is Too High a Price for Facebook and Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-is-too-high-a-price-for-facebook-and-google-11559966411 <comment><USER2> One key point about the free and/or zero marginal cost "products" that I think economists haven't yet dealt with is: massive imbalances between revenue generated by a product and the cost of producing it.

Facebook is the cleanest example. Compare to BMW. If we cut BMW's annual budget by 50%, we'd get about 50% fewer cars. If we do the same to FB, we'd get approximately the same FB.

FB's revenue happens to be about $65bn per annum. But, the cost of making Facebook available to all its users is basically arbitrary. If Facebook had happened to produce just $6.5bn, I expect that the value/features users get would have been about the same.

A lot of the investment (eg uber) in such products goes towards pure (kinda zero-sum) competition. IE, a big chunk of the investment in Uber wasn't needed (or beneficial) for consumers to get the benefit of Uber. It was just needed to ensure Uber captured market share.

This has potentially worrying implications for economic efficiency.

<comment><USER3> This has been the case since at least the 1990s, maybe earlier.

That strategy has always emphasized market-share over profitability.

It seems to work out better for software than physical produced goods.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is the cost of privacy? How much would you pay to have total control of your data? Because that's the price of Facebook / Google.

At least with Google, you can get some modicum if privacy and improved security by paying for G-Suite on a private domain (you have _way_ more control of your data policy that way). But it doesn't change the fact that >90% of their revenue and nearly all their profit comes from advertising.

Facebook is pure cancer, and should die in a fire.

<comment><USER5> You get privacy with Google ? Root your phone and check how often your Android phones home 1e100.net . Even the stupidest of things like opening the phone settings will make Android to call up big brother. I can only imagine what they do when you login to the phone.

<comment><USER6> I wonder if ROMs like LineageOS remove this telemetry.

<comment><USER7> The telemetry mostly comes from Google Play Services, which are optional on LineageOS. I've been using my phone without it and side-loading open source programs - no issues so far and no telemetry collected as far as I can see.

<comment><USER6> Ah, in that case I wonder if MicroG has the same sort of telemetry, as that's what I've installed in my LOS ROM...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Link without paywall: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-is-too-high-a- price-fo...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-is-too-high-a-price-for- facebook-and-google-11559966411?mod=rsswn)

<comment><USER8> Blendle link if you want to pay 49 cents: [https://blendle.com/i/the-wall- street-journal/when-free-is-t...](https://blendle.com/i/the-wall-street- journal/when-free-is-too-high-a-price/bnl-wallstreetjournal840-20190608-17_2)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for this, been looking to sign up to Blendle for ages!

</comment></comment></comment><comment> your-nanny what stops a company that charges for it's services from also making even more money by selling your data and showing you ads?

even traditional magazines and newspapers had ads.

<comment><USER10> Traditional magazines and newspapers were generally primarily ad-supported; paid circulation was important as a signal that the as ads were getting viewed, drive there was no way to measure impressions delivered to actual readers directly; there's less reason for an ad-funded online service to charge users directly, since they don't need the indirect proxy measure of reach.

<comment> your-nanny yeah, but "less reason to" is not "more reason not to"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone know how to read this article for free? Ironically relative.

</comment><comment><USER12> _What dollar value do you assign to misinformation that undermined the national discourse around the 2016 U.S. election..._

It has been priceless for "both" the "major" parties, that such a baseless falsehood as RussiaRussiaRussia has allowed them to avoid any scrutiny of how their chosen candidates could have been beaten by a reality-TV buffoon. After enough arm-twisting, FB finally allowed that, sure, whatever, Russia bought a couple thousand dollars worth of ads. Thanks Facebook!

<comment><USER13> Baseless falsehood? I take it you haven't read the Mueller Report or seen the indictments of Russian Nationals. Willful ignorance or intentional misinformation?

<comment><USER14> Some people commit crimes and go to jail, including Russian nationals who interfere with our elections. But let's be clear, a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads that read like they were created by high schoolers is not why a clown was elected. That's the lie, not that foreign actors tried to influence our election. Foreign actors trying to influence elections is the standard operating procedure for all the big players in the world.

<comment><USER15> The danger is that if people keep inflating this imaginary foreign bugaboo as the root cause for their perceived catastrophe, they will ignore the real reasons they lost the next time. Perhaps the second time around can break through their cognitive dissonance, but I fear it will just break sanity.

<comment><USER14> I'm confident he'll win again and worry there'll be riots in major cities. The front runner for the Democrats, Biden, doesn't even seem to be really campaigning. I think their strategy is "The less people see Biden the more they like him" so he has carefully been timid enough to stay out of the news. And Biden is definitely a back to former status quo candidate.

<comment> your-nanny And I'm worried that if he loses, he won't accept the results of the election, and that many of his most rabid fans will follow him into the abyss. I'm worried that his jokes about staying President betray his actual desires, and that his lack of knowledge and respect for the Constitution and rule of law, or of norms of decency, alongside his narcissism and lack of inhibition, will cause him to do just that. I'm worried that this country has become two countries, and that Republicans would rather stick it to the libs than follow their own oft stated principle s. I worry that the talking heads self interest in stoking controversey and outrage puts ratings before truth, god, and country. I worry that no one wants to find the truth anymore,band that some believe that there is no truth, only power. I worry that each side no longer sees the other as friends, neighbours, allies, or even as Americans, perhaps not even fully human.

<comment><USER14> People have said the same thing about at least the two most recent previous presidents. There's zero chance of him not stepping down. Even if Trump were the type of person to try that, which he's not, in order for the type of coup you're talking about to work you have to have support of the military. Any attempt to do this would last all of about ten seconds.

<comment> your-nanny I am aware that it is an American tradition to worry about Presidents defying their term limits, declaring national emergencies to seize power, and all that jazz. It's a tradition I approve of, especially given the increasing power of the executive branch, and Congress's weak-kneed approach to reigning that in.

That said, Trump's "jokes" about such things are not ordinary and are deeply inappropriate. Also his attempts to get the military and the police to show personal loyalty to him is also unusual, and deeply inappropriate. Even if, as you say, he couldn't pull it off even if he tried, that doesn't mean it is not setting bad precedent. Norms are much harder to build up than to tear down, and the rule of law as we know it cannot survive without them.

<comment><USER14> All major indications are that he was prepared to lose and concede the 2016 election. He didn't appear to have written an acceptance speech. He didn't have a cabinet picked out. He is rumored to have had a deal in the works to start his own cable channel, Trump TV. You don't do that stuff if you're planning on committing a coup to overthrow the country after losing an election. I remember the first six months. He was not behaving like a person who seriously thought he'd be running the country, legitimately or otherwise. There is no reasonable concern here. He's a reality TV personality and says a lot of stupid shit. I don't like him a president, but these hair on fire fears and conspiracy theories are baseless.

<comment> your-nanny I'm not talking about 2016, and never have been talking about 2016. but it's pretty clear you are not actually responding to anything I've actually said, so no point in continuuing the conversation. probably no point to begin with, since when it comes to politics people's heads don't stay on straight.

but presidents saying "stupid shit" is not something I take lightly

<comment><USER14> I understand you're not talking about 2016. But the Trump that was totally ready to concede and not ever even become the President in 2016 is the same Trump running in 2020.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The irony that it's behind a pay wall and I immediately lose interest. I wonder if the WSJ talks about that?

<comment><USER17> What irony? Either you accept ad supported content or you pay for it.

<comment><USER18> Problem: why people share links to payed content ?

In my world, payed content = no sharing. It would be great if sites like this would just prevent that. I don't have a problem with payed stuff. I have a problem when people hijack my time by providing a link that turns out to be pay walled, whats the point of that ? No... I am not going to bounce register, does it anybody ?</comment></comment></comment>


The One Interview Question You Should Always Ask, but No One Ever Does - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/the-deeply-revealing-interview-question-no-one-ever-asks-but-you-should.html?cid=cp01002quartz <comment><USER2> I was thinking the question would be: "What is the downside of working for you."

</comment><comment><USER3> tldr: "Ask for negative references" ... jfc

</comment><comment><USER4> Link is down for me.</comment>


Node.js Is a Salad Bar Thoughts on Boilerplate, Frameworks and Usability - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@modernserf/node-js-is-a-salad-bar-74ec01bd4390#.7x87fydp9 <comment><USER2> I've always thought that Node and the various JS frameworks cry out for an administrator with a GUI. We got away from language frameworks where you first had to edit six different XML files to begin any project. Is having to edit multiple interacting JSON files really that big an improvement?

When learning something new the quicker you get to just building something as opposed to administrative trivia the better.</comment>


A cryptocurrency without a blockchain (Tangle) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://iotatoken.com/IOTA_Whitepaper.pdf <comment><USER2> I find myself confused about the tangle's tip selection algorithm. It seems that a new transaction must choose non-tip sites to confirm, otherwise the overall number of tips would decrease (since only one new tip is created while two become verified). The tip selection algorithm only seems to mention selecting "edge" sites.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://medium.com/@lyaffe/scaling-a-blockchain-vs- scaling-a...](https://medium.com/@lyaffe/scaling-a-blockchain-vs-scaling-a- tangle-8b7182eda980)

</comment><comment><USER4> I would very much like to hear a detailed analysis of this idea because it seems too good to be true.

<comment><USER5> Other than the white paper, this could be an interesting video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpNvfct2jlg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpNvfct2jlg)</comment></comment>


A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism - <AUTHOR> http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2013/02/03/a-simplified-modern-approach-to-stoicism/ <comment><USER3> Shorter list :

\- Read the "Epistulæ Morales ad Lucilium" from Seneca

\- Read the "Bhagavad Gita" to avoid being stuck in a given interpretation.

\- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself

And therefore make your own list of how to live your day. Feeling grateful and trying to see the lord in every being you encounter, friend or foe, is is mine.

Also "no man does evil knowingly" seems wrong - sorry, but a tiny minority of people _really_ want to see the world burn.

Just remember there are very few of them, that by default you should assume people have good intentions but sometimes fail.

EDIT: Following the excellent comment of nerdfiles one can only see with "showdead" option, order of reading is important, and my suggestion might not be the best.

Not everyone can start with Seneca. You will certainly need a starting point to take advantage of the stoic teachings, ie something to help you see how useful stoicism could be to you.

This starting point is Logic for many people, but it can be anything that tries to teach how to look for the truth and to pinpoint problems. I personally found Atlas Shrugged very interesting, others will have different tastes. The Dharma can be useful. Richard Feynman work is great. A vast personal experience could also help, since people who have traveled the world usually develop interesting insights.

(BTW nerdfiles, your account has been blacklisted)

<comment><USER4> >\- Shy away from religion. Find the truth by yourself

Keep an open mind. While reading the Stoics take the trouble to read Augustine's Confessions or dip into Aquinus' Summa Theologica. Breeze through the Quran. Spend some time with the Book of Mormon. Drop into a synagog and get to know the worshipers there. Don't dismiss ideas out of hand. Contemplate them, and let your curiosity lead you where you need to be.

<comment><USER3> Excellent suggestion: religious textbooks are great sources of inspiration.

However, they are dangerous, in the fact that while 90% of the content is great, the remaining 10% may damage one's personal progression. These 10% require adequate preparation to be seen as what they are - pitfalls, which is why I suggested to "shy away" from them, at least initially.

It is far too easy to get "stuck" in religion and take the whole 100% as perfectly valid thoughts. Swallowing up the full doctrine "fills" the cup of the mind, which is no longer open to further knowledge.

The only "safe" reading might be the Dharma, because of it self-criticizing nature and the suggestion to dismiss the teachings if they conflict with reality and experience

<comment><USER4> Dogma prejudices atheists just as often as theists. For example, Darwin's Origin of Species contains a pitfall in that its readers can be persuaded to believe certain families of mankind are less evolved than others. Similarly, Marx's Capital and Manifesto of the Communist Party can lead one to believe that inequality is purely a function of material possession. A disciple of Smith's Wealth of Nations could reduce the world to merely a place to make money and which is the slave of market forces, etc. All of these works, while potentially "dangerous", stand on their own merits and should be read.

"Adequate preparation" is prejudice and should be spelled out as such. Socrates' dialogs stand as examples of the traditional Western method of exploring ideas, wherein one man questions another with the object of mutually understanding the essence of a thing, or, by being prodded toward future learning when having reached an uncomfortable ataraxy. This differs fundamentally from the critical theory taught in modern universities, wherein one is taught, rather than to seek an idea's essence, to tear it down beforehand.

Instead of fearing ideas, one should explore them.

<comment><USER3> That's an interesting point - one I mostly agree with.

But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial self? And how do you do that, if you knows beforehand of the pitfalls, such as the ones you mentioned? How can you explore ideas if you already fear them??

From my limited understanding of philosophy, changing oneself too much is not desirable, since in the end the orignal opinions and self are lost - <http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/>

Analysis requires a reference, a broader frame, to detect such pitfalls - <USER2> seems pointless to experience ideas whose defaults are already too obvious to you.

<comment><USER4> >But if you explore the ideas fully, how much do you keep of your initial self?

The point of learning _is_ to change oneself. Socrates addressed this by likening the mind to a wax block, upon which ideas are "stamped" (in his Meno (sp) Plato contradictorily claimed that all knowledge is recalled from a separate preincarnate existence, but that's another topic). In learning one seeks to move from one state of knowing to another. Ideas change oneself. The alternative is shunning ideas, and thereby shunning one's growth.

>And how do you do that, if you knows beforehand of the pitfalls, such as the ones you mentioned?

Do not assume one will be inevitably converted by what one reads.

>How can you explore ideas if you already fear them?

Stop fearing them. Be stoic, or use some other virtue to overcome one's trepidation.

>Analysis requires a reference

Correct. The reference of analysis are its fundamentals. Much of Aristotle's Organon and Metaphysics, as well as Plato's Timaeus, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Plotinus' Enneads, etc., concern the fundamentals of thought. The examination of these fundamentals, while in some sense "obvious", are in no way "pointless".

The true pitfall is fear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If anyone is interested in a book on the subject, I really like William Irvine's "A Guide to the Good Life" ([http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life- Ancient-Stoic/dp/01953...](http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient- Stoic/dp/0195374614))

I have some extensive book notes here: [http://www.quora.com/Leo- Polovets/Exceptionally-long-book-no...](http://www.quora.com/Leo- Polovets/Exceptionally-long-book-notes-for-exceptionally-good-books/Notes-on- A-Guide-to-the-Good-Life-by-Irvine)

<comment><USER4> Personally, I would cut out the middle men. Avoid glossy-covered and over- marketed summaries of other men's work. Grab a copy of Epictetus' discourses and his Enchiridion. Read Aurelius' meditations. Get familiar with Plutarch's Lives.

This will get one started cheaply: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/LUCRETIUS- EPICTETUS-12-Britannica-Gr...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/LUCRETIUS- EPICTETUS-12-Britannica-Great- Books-1952-A-/200793378954?pt=US_Fiction_Books&hash=item2ec037d08a) Be aware, this volume includes Lucretius who is not a stoic, rather, a typical reductionist Epicurian. The Enchiridion can also be found cheaply: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/Enchiridion-Dover-Thrift-Editions- By...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Enchiridion-Dover-Thrift-Editions-By- Epictetus-/310586449786?pt=Fiction&hash=item4850651f7a) . Here's a fine translation of Plutarch's Lives: [http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plutarch-Great- Books-of-the-Western-...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Plutarch-Great-Books-of-the- Western- World-1952-Vol-14-/251209763683?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item3a7d44cb63) . These works are cheap and readily available used on eBay and elsewhere. Take advantage of it if you are seriously interested in learning.

Avoid the marketing. Read Knuth or K&R rather than "How to Program in 24 hours", etc. The same goes for philosophy. There's nothing new under the sun. Seek out what's stood the test of time, incorporate it into your fundamentals, and proceed from there.

<comment><USER6> Ah, but we do know more about the world in many ways than the original Stoics did. William Irvine's book recasts the Stoic teachings a bit: we don't believe that we were created by Zeus, for example, so he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way (if one wishes).

<comment><USER4> >Ah, but we do know more about the world

I disagree completely. The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition. We do know more physical minutia, ie., slates and chalk have fallen to iPhones, sandals to sports cars, and yet the essential spirit of man is the same as it ever was, and that is what the Stoics are addressing.

The descendents of Aristotle have continued reducing the world to its sub- components in the centuries since Plato and he disagreed as to whether reality is in the whole or the part. But again, this is a fundamental division found in philosophy, and ultimately nothing new.

>he talks about how to interpret Stoicism in an atheist way

...it would be better if he had taught how to interperet it in an agnostic way, rather. Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism.

<comment><USER7> > The appeal to progress is just as much a fallacy as the appeal to tradition.

And what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology and culture?

> Atheism is a closed-minded agnosticism.

Ouch. There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.

<comment><USER4> >what if the spirit of man is shaped by his technology

What if it isn't? Man no longer wars with trebuchets. Does that mean that the nature of man has changed? Similarly, man will someday set aside personal computers for something else. Does that mean that the nature of man will again change? A man's tools are not his nature, rather, nature is known through man's acts. Such acts are exampled in works such as Plutarch's lives or in the Meditations of Aurelius and speak just as true today as when they were written. Epictetus and the above cited wrote for the layman and require no arbitrator to make them pertinent or safe for the present day.

Recognize that there materialistic and idealistic worldviews, and further, that the the former is ubiquitous today. Try to see beyond the coloring of the present. Man's stuff is not the stuff he's made of. Capiche?

>what if the spirit of man is shaped by his culture?

Then one would benefit by looking outside of the prejudices of the present when reading for edification. Avoid marketing forces.

>There are no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is the rational response to this state of affairs. Agnosticism is for the weak.

Atheists are really just closed minded agnostics. They are believers every bit as much as theists. Both are dogmatic.

Kant rationally discusses this in his Critique of Pure Reason. We have only five senses and a handful of a priori concepts with which to understand the world. All our knowledge is heaped up upon these principles of reasoning. In other words, what we know is fundamentally limited by what is used to know things. Objective certitude is far rarer than it is generally made out to be.

Beware of dogma, whether atheistic or theistic.

<comment><USER7> Atheism isn't dogma; whereas theism is. I will show you why.

We have both argued that we should approach this rationally. My reason tells me that I have been given zero proof for the existence of any of the gods described by theists. Kant himself (who you mention) discusses various proofs and dismisses them. What we are left with is the puzzle of existence itself and this feeling (that we all have) of wonder at the majesty and mystery of the world. I am disinclined to attribute any of this to some supernatural agent. Why should I? I see no reason to. Clearly I cannot rationally know there is no god or gods but I as Douglas Adams pointed out I'm not going to take some kind of wishy-washy hedge my bets stance on the matter. When talking about the existence of some kind of objects that has the attributes that god or the gods are claimed to have the burden of proof lies with those who assert this agent's existence. Therefore I shall continue to believe in the non- existence of a god or gods. Show me my dogma: I don't assert the existence of anything without proof, I reject the proof claims of others and assert the non-existence based on lack of evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> BBC Radio 4 has a programme called "In Our Time". Many episodes of this programme will be of interest to HN readers.

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl>)

Epicurianism is going to be broadcast soon. (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qf083>)

Here's a list of the philosophy programmes: ([http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our- time/archive/phi...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our- time/archive/philosophy))

And here's the episode for Stoicism: (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9fs>)

</comment><comment><USER9> Even shorter list: 1\. Plan your day. 2\. Execute on the plan 3\. Review and score how it went.

<comment><USER10> Hmm... Might be good advice. That's just the format or structure used to explain the exercise minus any content, though: a beginning, middle, and end. The actual content in my article is the practice of a form of mindfulness based on the central precept of Stoicism. In other words, you've missed out the "Stoic" part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> On the same site as this article you can also complete a "Stoic Attitudes Scale" that we've been developing in collaboration with a team of psychologists and academics linked to the research on Stoicism at Exeter University:

[http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/complete-online-survey-the- stoi...](http://philosophy-of-cbt.com/complete-online-survey-the-stoic- attitudes-scale/)

About 100 people have done it so far but at this stage we're just collecting feedback on the concepts included for incorporation into a revised design. The feedback has been that people have found it really interesting and useful, though. Feel free to check it out, you can still complete it online.

Regards,

Donald Robertson

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm the author of the article. Someone else kindly posted it here. I just noticed an awful lot of traffic suddenly coming from this link. So thought I'd say thanks! Also, if anyone has any questions please let me know. Happy to help. The article is just based on some research I'm doing for a book called Teach yourself Stoicism, incidentally. You may also be interested in the research on Stoicism that's been going on at the University of Exeter, with which I've been helping a bit. This is their blog:

<http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/>

Regards,

Donald Robertson

</comment><comment><USER11> Here's a very interesting article about Albert Ellis, one of the originators of cognitive-behavioral therapy, who was directly influenced by Stoicism: [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013ta_talk_gr...](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013ta_talk_green)

</comment><comment><USER12> "Give me the wisdom the see the difference".

But sometimes people (Aaron Swartz comes to mind) find the courage to fight and try and change things even when the odds of winning against large companies or the government seem remote.

Sometimes humanity advances when certain individuals fight against the odds. I wish I had their courage.

</comment><comment><USER10> You might also be interested in this online poll that's been running for a while "Who's your favourite Stoic?" Over 400 responses so far and you can vote or view the results, which are kind of interesting in their own right:

<http://poll.fm/3zsyo>

Regards,

Donald Robertson

</comment><comment><USER13> -Contemplation of Death: Contemplate your own death regularly, the deaths of loved ones and even the demise of the universe itself.

Mission Accomplished.

<comment><USER14> Wait, the quoted text is considered advice? Ugh.

<comment><USER10> No, it's not advice. It's an item from a bullet-point list of contemplative exercises found in traditional Stoicism and other Socratic philosophies. The meditation on death (melete thanatou) was mentioned by Socrates as an integral part of his approach to philosophy, according to Plato and it's common to many other philosophical and spiritual traditions, even Eastern approaches such as Buddhism. You'd need to read the literature to understand the concept of the exercise, although that doesn't necessarily mean you'd agree with it you won't get a reasonable idea of what it's about just from that one sentence description, and that's not what it's meant for anyway. Still not everyone's cup of tea, though.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are freelancer sites (e.g. Odesk, Elance) useless? - <AUTHOR>

So I submitted a few gigs to freelance sites like Odesk, freelancer.com, elance etc. I used the handy guide provided by Derek Sivers on how to write up a good "help wanted" ad.
I was looking for a skilled designer to produce a simple UI.
After about 2 minutes, I received around 8 applications on odesk and freelancer.com. By the end of the day, I had around 40 applications in total.
Problem is: almost all of them sucked. Very disappointing indeed.
Has anyone out there actually found a good designer / developer on one of these freelance sites? Care to share tips? <comment><USER2> As a rule, you can toss every response you get in the first hour. As you've noticed, there are tons on people on those sites who send out the same canned proposal to every single listing. That level of attention is a good indicator of how the rest of your project will go if you're foolish enough to take one of them on.

Wait a few days. If you've written a good project description (and if you're a bit lucky), you'll start to see a few qualified proposals trickle in.

This is the main problem with freelancing sites. The race to the bottom finished years ago, and the result is that there are simply no good developers or designers left there. It's actually an opportunity waiting for talented newcomers, since a single person showing up and acting professionally would get the job described by this poster (and everybody else who goes there seriously looking to build something).

I took the time to write up my experiences with these freelance sites a few years back:

[http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2007/09/how-to-fail- at...](http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2007/09/how-to-fail-at- freelancing-in-5-easy.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for tip. You're absolutely right, most of the first once were automated and totally crap. This was evidenced by the fact that they didn't contain the test "I AM REAL" statement which was intended to filter out the spammers.

I'll wait it out a bit longer before calling it quits on these sites.

<comment><USER3> _This was evidenced by the fact that they didn't contain the test "I AM REAL" statement which was intended to filter out the spammers._

Sorry, but this is stupid. I think a developer should write a dedicated message. That is, you should figure it out from the message you get, you don't need such things. I actually ignore buyers that put such rules.

<comment><USER4> I've no experience of these sites, but asking dev's to put "i am real" strikes me as something they're doing out of desperation of dealing with fake requests etc.

This implies to me that they will be all the more appreciative when you turn out to actually be real! A client that appreciates you from the get go, well that has to be a good thing, no?

<comment><USER5> The problem is that it's disrespectful in the first place. Who wants to be part of a group that is so little respected? How hard is it to make an evaluation that doesn't devalue the audience?

<comment><USER6> Harder than you think. OTOH, how hard is it (on your feelings) to type 'i am human'?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the other side of the fence, I can tell you its extremely difficult to find reasonable clients as a programmer on one of these sites. The expectations are almost always unreasonable, and the rates clients are willing to pay are very low.

When I had started using various sites of this type, my intention was to take projects at below my normal rate to fill in "dead time" -- I'd decided I could settle for $25 an hour. This number proved virtually impossible to meet except for the rare client who needed something immediately and was willing to pay $50-$75 to have something fixed.

The end result? I think competent programmers are driven away from these sites because the financial rewards are simply not worth it. I found getting projects at $20/hour a challenge, and $15/hour typical. To put that in perspective I was charging my more typical clients $50/hour at the time.

<comment><USER8> I think it really depends on your specific set of skills. If you have a niche skill that a lot of $2-3 an hour programmers aren't going to be able to duplicate, there will be a few higher paying gigs. I only joined oDesk recently but have already had some luck with Haskell development. If your primary skill is, say, PHP or Ruby you might have more trouble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have the opposite problem. I'm a former mobile game engineer at an RoR shop, and decided to go the freelance route, recently. However, I have no idea where to start.

I initially went to the sites listed above, but eh...every job had hundreds of bids offering absurd rates (no, you are not going to build a Facebook clone for $200 dollars in 10 days).

Anyone have any tips on how to find clients who understand the market and are willing to pay for quality work?

<comment><USER10> My first freelance gig came from oDesk a couple of years ago, and since then I've gone on to freelance full time. I'm not an expert on the subject by any stretch, but this is the best advice I can give:

* Don't try and compete on price. A lot of freelancers on the site can go lower, and you'll end up broke. Besides, if a client is more interested in saving a few dollars than paying for a decent worker, you're saving yourself a lot of future pain.

* When you apply for something, say what you'll do and give a rough idea of how you'll solve their problem. It only has to be a few paragraphs, but you'll have put more thought in than 99% of other applicants.

* Look for jobs that mention an ongoing relationship. This usually means they have a lot more work and want to try things out.

All of my work now comes from referrals which in some way originate from the first job I did on oDesk. It was discouraging when I was rejected for jobs despite putting in the effort, but the work paid off in the end. Best of luck!

<comment><USER11> I really like your approach, obvious but it didn't cross my mind before. Using the freelancing sites to bootstrap yourself but aiming towards long-term relationships and referrals. Two questions though: 1\. Can you share what you do as a freelancer? 2\. You are not longer active on oDesk or any other freelance sites then?

<comment><USER10> 1\. I started doing custom blog plugins, but have also done e-commerce sites, Facebook apps and custom web applications. I'm a coder, not a designer, but that hasn't caused any problems for me so far.

2\. Haven't touched oDesk since my first job there. I might use it again in the future, but to be honest I found searching for work there rather depressing with all the low rates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have had quite a bit of success using these services.

Here are a few of my tips:

1\. As jasonkester said, wait at least a week before you start looking at proposals and making your decision. You get a lot of crap in the first few days, and you want to give the "good" people enough time to find and read it.

2\. Be really clear and specific with your RFP. Go in into as much detail as possible, and look for responses that indicate that they have read it. Also, make sure you use a descriptive headline. You're competing with quite a few people, so you want your project to stand out.

3\. Ask a few specific questions in your description. This is not only a great way to start to grasp their domain knowledge, but you also can filter out people who haven't read it (similar to #2).

4\. When you have narrowed down your selection to 3 or 4, send them an even more detailed description of your project and arrange a Skype call. It's easy to be deceptive via email, but if you have someone on the phone you can quickly gauge how competent they are on the fly. Treat it like a real phone interview for a job you've had in the past, except you are the interviewer.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER13> The good ones stay away from this kind of sites. The only chance is to catch someone good and promising before he gets buried under piles of works, raises the prices and no longer needs those sites ;)

<comment><USER14> Seems to be my pattern. I've got to increase my rates 100% in last 6 months, and I have still had to say No to some customers/additional work, because of enough work.

I've got encouraging comments from my customers, but dont think I am _that_ good. (Probably/Hopefully Dunning-Kruger effect in play).

<comment><USER15> It is not Dunning-Kruger effect. It is impostor syndrome.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome>

<comment><USER11> I have no psychology experience but after reading the wikipedia page of Impostor Syndrome, Dunning-Kruger effect, and skimming through Dunning and Kruger's Nobel Prize paper[1] there is a third effect/syndrome that seems to be involved: False consensus effect [2]. They state: "Simply, put, these participants assumed that because they performed so well, their peers must have performed well likewise."[1]. If you are interested as how they reached that conclusion refer to section "Burden of Expertise" on page 1131 (pdf page 11) in [1].

As an extra note: The Impostor syndrome is not an officially recognized psychological disorder[3]. I've seen the Impostor syndrome mentioned many times but had never taken time to read the complete wikipedia page.

[1][http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dunning/publications/pdf/un...](http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dunning/publications/pdf/unskilledandunaware.pdf) [2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect> [3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have been on both sides of these freelance sites. I freelanced through them when I was in school.

Now I occasionally outsource some of our work through these websites. Following are the tips that usually work for me:

\- Freelance Outsourcing works best for smaller projects with a clear scope. Examples: web design, PSD to XHTML, WordPress / CMS themes etc. It works best in this use case because a lot of people have such requirements. Freelancers are well versed with it, and they have usually worked on at least one similar project.

\- Find the designers / developers who have worked on a project similar like yours. There are freelancers who are expert at a particular stack / technology / framework. Example: Wordpress, Django, Code Igniter, iOS experts. They don't apply at every listing unlike most freelancers. Once you shortlist them, invite them to apply for your listing and review their past work.

<comment><USER17> "Freelance Outsourcing works best for smaller projects with a clear scope"

Agreed. This is exactly the kind of outsourcing my website focuses on.

You have on one end of the spectrum "project outsourcing" (odesk, elance, ...) and on the other end "microtask outsourcing" (fiverr), and in between there is <http://taskarmy.com> that focuses on skilled tasks.

I am looking for more quality developers on it, especially PHP. Please submit your service if you are interested.

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you are searching for a designer, the sites listed above are not the right places, i'd try with 99designs.com or manually searching a designer from dribbble.com.

If you decide to go the 99design way (easier maybe) read this: [http://blog.trisse.com/2011/05/09/how-to-make-the-most-of- yo...](http://blog.trisse.com/2011/05/09/how-to-make-the-most-of- your-99-designs-submission/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link - very good tips there.

I think you're right with dribbble. I've also been looking into Behance.net and Creattica. Have you had good experiences with directly approaching designers?

<comment><USER19> Hey, maybe some of you freelance web developers could make a site like Dribbble, but for developers: invite-only, high quality developers, and screenshots/descriptions of completed projects. Maybe client ratings/recommendations too.

<comment><USER20> I feel like GitHub is the Dribbble for developers (except for the exclusivity).

You'll probably gather more out of their code than screenshots of what they've been a part of.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, github is a great way for developers to see what other developers are like, but it doesn't tell you which developers are looking for freelance work, nor does it help nontechnical people figure out who is good (unless it has some recommendation system that I don't know about)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm currently working with an excellent Django developer (in China) and a top- notch designer/front-end dev (in Serbia). Found them both through oDesk.

Apply a bit of filtering. One trick I use is asking a simple domain-knowledge type question in the posting. Ignore everyone who doesn't read it properly or doesn't bother answering. That will instantly cut a lot of the crud out.

<comment><USER22> Sorry to have to use HN for this as you don't have an email address in your profile, but could I get in touch with your designer in Serbia please?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I work on oDesk as an ASP.NET developer. I never apply to any jobs. The more experienced employers don't usually post their projects publicly; they create private projects, and then send out invitations encouraging selected individuals to apply. That way they avoid receiving low-quality responses.

<comment><USER17> This is a good point, but to get invited you need to have a good history.

What did you do when you started to get your first clients?

<comment><USER23> I started the regular way, by creating a profile, taking the time to fill in my job history properly, and to do as many oDesk tests as possible. I set my initial price lowish to reflect absence of history.

The first jobs I got were not in IT but in translation and copywriting, where demonstrating my skills was much easier. To get the first job in IT, I had to offer references outside oDesk - which were followed up - to make my profile credible.

Once I had my first jobs, my main focus was on delivering very high quality work - even if it was not always very well paid - so as to build up a very positive feedback history. My main focus at this stage was on creating a good profile, not making money.

Once I had enough history and feedback, new job offers started rolling in, and I stopped looking for work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As someone who had posted jobs on oDesk, I have to say that even the low skilled jobs (data entry) are poorly done. I've also posted some higher skilled jobs like basic stuff based on Zend and it too was a disappointment. I've now learned my lesson on higher skilled jobs (design and dev) going after HTML chop shops, 99designs or real designers with websites.

I'm still looking for somewhere for cheap mechanical labor (basic writing gigs, data entry etc). Anyone have any suggestions?

<comment><USER17> <http://taskarmy.com> focuses on task outsourcing instead of project outsourcing.

Disclaimer: my baby.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've found some good designer/developers through freelance sites like Guru and Elance and even Craigslist.

My trick, if it is one, is to put a human face on my postings. I share a little about who I am, a young entrepreneur trying to do something cool.

This usually helps get 1 or 2 posts that are by someone whose a good match and it usually goes well from there.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've just signed up on odesk as a freelance programmer. Do you think it will scare people away if I say that my English skill is 3 stars out of 5 ? I'm afraid people aren't willing to work with guys who are not fluent in English... By the way, does anyone know if there are Europeans posting jobs on odesk ?

<comment><USER27> From what you just posted your English sounds fine. If your English isn't great, and you feel there is some miscommunication, make sure not to hide it but just to ask for verification about what you're thinking you need to do.

<comment><USER26> Thank you, actually on Odesk 3 stars mean fluent in written English, but not so good in spoken English. I wonder if a lot of people need to communicate on skype for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Reading the comments here is actually somewhat interesting. I've considered doing a bit of freelancing for some extra cash (I'm in college now) but I always assumed that the people on these sites were pros and that I wouldn't stand a chance.

Maybe I'll have to give freelancing another thought!

<comment><USER29> Go for it, you just need a bit of patience in the beginning, but if you comminicate well in your proposal (provide some rough ideas about possible implementations, related experience, etc.) you stand a good chance of getting work. Once you get a few good reviews you stand a better chance that you will be invited to work without having to apply directly as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> In average the response you'll receive on free lance marketplaces will always be disappointing, but if the project is not too complicate, you can always find someone good enough to do it.

One option is to invite coders to bid on your project by looking at their past experiences and find some that may relate to the type of project you have.

Other than that, and I know I've said this before, the best coders on free lance sites are those that ask questions relevant to your project description.

While you can safely discard all those that submit generic bids with links to their portfolios without any type of comment about the project they are bidding on, those that ask questions are the ones you want to work with.

</comment><comment><USER31> The best way to use these sites is to find the one developer on there that is actually competent and then make a closed project that speaks directly to that provider. Sure you will pay $25 to $60 per hour, but you will get damn good service and quality. The rest of it is a crap shoot.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've outsourced a ton, spending >$5k over the past 8-years or so. I've written a little about how best to outsource through these platforms: <http://www.keithmander.com/?p=243>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Keith. It was a good read. Also liked your post on ebay hacks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a rule of thumb, if you are looking for a developer on these websites, focus your search on eastern europeans and skip the indians and pakistanis.

Of course there are good indians, but more often than not, you would be wasting your time.

</comment><comment><USER33> In short, yes I have found good designers. One of the keys is to give 4 or 5 of the best applicants a small test project before moving forward

</comment><comment><USER34> 'handy guide provided by Derek Sivers on how to write up a good "help wanted" ad.' Can you suggest a link , where I can find the ad you are referring ! thanks

</comment><comment><USER6> the recently launched <http://codeyouridea.com> looks like an interesting take on the problem. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2540909>

</comment><comment><USER35> my odesk secret: only pitch developers you want to work for you. The inbound stuff is all crap, where as I've found several awesome developers and designers who I contact via email on a regular basis, and bill all work through oDesk.

</comment><comment><USER36> [http://www.freshbooks.com/blog/2011/01/13/say-no-to-spec- wor...](http://www.freshbooks.com/blog/2011/01/13/say-no-to-spec-work/) <http://www.no-spec.com/what-is-spec/>

<comment><USER37> The sites under discussion are very explicitly _not_ for spec work. Because they make their money by taking a percentage from the payment, in fact, they do everything they can to make sure all work is paid.</comment></comment>