Mathematicians looking to make elections in the US more representative - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/the-mathematicians-who-want-to-save-democracy-1.22113 <comment><USER3> There are a _ton_ of important issues, but, I believe that gerrymandering is a core issue in the United States because :

Partisan gerrymandering allows for politicians to secure their seats - <USER2> leads to less voters being represented (allowing the politicians to become more polarized) e.g. when races are tight, politicians tend to move towards the center. [2]

Partisan gerrymandering is strongly disliked by both parties and across the political spectrum, the only people fighting for it are those currently in power (on both sides) [3]

Partisan gerrymandering disenfranchises a large portion of voters, whose votes end up "not counting" b/c of how district lines are drawn[4]

Because of this, I'm currently fundraising (from friends and family) for the legal team in the North Carolina case [1]. I've committed significant amount personally to the fundraise and can say that this is arguably one of the highest leverage ways to spent dollars that you can get to get America back on track as a representative democracy.

I've done a lot of research on this - if you want to help (with $$) or just want to learn more, feel free to reach out (valgui [at] gmail.com)

[1][http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/LWVNC...](http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/LWVNCvRucho%20One%20Pager.pdf) [2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/us/politics/in-indiana- tig...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/us/politics/in-indiana-tight-senate- race-senate-candidates-move-to-center.html) [3][http://www.theharrispoll.com/politics/Americans_Across_Party...](http://www.theharrispoll.com/politics/Americans_Across_Party_Lines_Oppose_Common_Gerrymandering_Practices.html) [4][http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wang-remlinger- ge...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-wang-remlinger- gerrymandering-20170505-story.html)

<comment> aaron-lebo One of my professors at UT Dallas has a book that argues that districts in fact should be partisan. It's been a few years but the logic is something like if you've got a 50-50 district, you're gonna end up with 50% of the people in the district unhappy. Where as if you intentionally designed districts to be like like 90-10 (or whatever possible), more people are happy.

Not sure if I believe him, but it's interesting.

 _Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections are Bad for America_

[https://www.amazon.com/Redistricting-Representation- Competit...](https://www.amazon.com/Redistricting-Representation-Competitive- Elections-Controversies/dp/0415964539)

<comment><USER3> That's a super interesting concept. I will look into it; book ordered! From a quick think through - I think that this argument may fall flat on 2 related ideas. 1\. Data shows that when seats are more secure like you say (90-10 instead of 50-50), representatives often go towards the extremes of the political spectrum (on both sides). this leads to issue 2... 2\. Voters are generally not strictly partisan - that is to say (purely as an example), while I may have right leaning thoughts on how to run the economy, I may have left leaning thoughts on social issues. If I'm in a district with someone that is far right or far left, a portion of the time they're always going to vote against my wishes. Am I better off in general? Hard to tell without getting more in depth on my preferences.

<comment><USER4> Could this be mitigated by having a system with more than two parties?

<comment><USER5> Multi party systems tend to favor the most ideologically driven actors in the system. An example of this is Israel.

Furthermore, American politics isn't two ideologies. Each party is composed of multiple groups that compete for dominance. Republicans have business interests, evangelicals, etc., while democrats have progressives, neoliberal, etc.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure I follow. American politics isn't two ideologies, but it does have ideologies. Is it better to bundle up these dozens of ideologies and interests into two parties than to have ideologically driven parties?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To me, the problem is winner-take-all districts to begin with. It all but ensures some constituents are going to be sorely disappointed. Why not consider something like multi-member districts? We could tune it even further by awarding variable voting power. Then the way the borders are drawn becomes far less relevant. I'm sure there are tradeoffs, but it would certainly be more representative.

<comment><USER8> Most of the arguments against this center on the fact that ranked systems would be too complex for voters to understand. Which I used to think was pure hogwash, but Americans have since proved that they can't handle even two candidates for a major office. Hint: the worst one was the one with zero government experience.

<comment><USER9> The parent didn't mention ranked choice voting unless I read it wrong. I read them to argue in favor of multiple representatives per district. You can have that even with the current voting system. The top n candidates get the job with n > 1\. There only difference is right now n = 1. That being said there is also the much simpler approval voting.

<comment><USER7> Yep, you read me correctly.

Approval voting is great too, but I don't know that it addresses the issue of district boundaries on its own.

And to address the question of complexity from the first person to reply to me, I don't think that's a realistic concern. Basically it would work like this: you vote normally (whether singe vote, approval, ranked, or whatever), then each party gets at most the number of winners proportional to their aggregate share of the vote, with representatives chosen in order of performance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The real problem, in my opinion, is that we're making more and more centralized decisions. Federalism properly done lessens the pressure to come up with complex gerrymandering and voting schemes by lessening the election pressure altogether.

It adds more power to other important democratic mechanisms: free speech and vote-with-your-feet.

The power of free speech is improved because a state legislator has fewer constituents, so each group of 100 with similar interests matters a lot more.

And, at the end of the day, if a city or state is really screwing things up, people (not everyone, but enough) can relocate to somewhere that is doing a better job.

Eliminating gerrymandering (how? how will it get passed?) and new voting schemes (which? how will it get passed?) are interesting, but federalism already exists (10th amendment), it's just underemphasized.

<comment><USER11> The downside is increased governance costs due to duplication of bureaucracy, increased complexity of legal systems, and more confusing everyday laws (as fewer people = less documentation and support services).

Which all means "vote-with-your-feet" is actually far harder to do, as all your everyday legal knowledge is useless in other states.

<comment><USER10> The counterargument is that increased _layers_ of bureaucracy is also expensive, possibly more expensive. And we already have byzantine regulations, so it's not all that much of a downside.

And, at the end of the day, we can talk to our city councilmen about the unfairness of complicated regulations. And cities can brag about their simple and fair legal systems to get people to want to move there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's easy to gerrymander a surface. It's hard to gerrymander a line, or a circle, where the connectedness requirement has teeth. One solution to gerrymandering is to determine congressional districts by birthday, or last name, rather than by geographic location.

<comment><USER13> Interesting concept! I wonder if this is hackable based on demographic popularity of last names, by race. According to Wolfram Alpha, the most common last names are: Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, which don't share a common 1st letter. But maybe some ethnic names might: Rodriguez, Ramirez, Chan, Chen, Chang...

But ultimately, what political needs would a community of last-name-starts- with-C need?

<comment><USER14> > But ultimately, what political needs would a community of last-name-starts- > with-C need?

None, which is why that grouping would only make sense in a society of extremely generic robots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As others have noted, proportional representation (PR) is the best solution to gerrymandering. (Not arguing that we shouldn't also support second-best solutions like nonpartisan redistricting and court challenges to the worst gerrymanders.)

The three PR methods in common use are STV-with-multimember-districts; mixed- member proportional (MMP); and open (or, yuck, closed) list systems. All of these (except closed lists) are decent, but have downsides. STV leads to very complex ballots; MMP leads to "two classes" of representatives; open list focuses your voting power on the partisan choice, but doesn't give you much power to help set the direction of your favorite party. And all three can lead to extreme party fragmentation and thus excess "kingmaker" power for splinter parties, unless there are rules against that.

It is, however, possible to design a method without any of these downsides. Perfection is impossible, but the Pareto frontier is, and none of the above methods are on it. Here's one that is:

[http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Geographic_Open_List/Delegat...](http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Geographic_Open_List/Delegated_\(GOLD\)_voting)

Here's an article about why it's good:

[https://email@example.com/make-all-votes-count- part-...](https://email@example.com/make-all-votes-count-part-i- pr-225f4aea34bb)

<comment><USER16> Do you have a more detailed desription about how this method works? Your links do not describe it in much detail but it is interesting.

Even without the details my sense is that this method suffers from some very serious problems. Picking the two candidates with the highest initial votes seems like a bad idea; this can remove all of the most widely supported candidates if there are enough similar candidates (i.e. if 70% of the voters are split between 10 candidates and 30% between two candidates, but the 70% consider the two that the 30% would elect to be least favored).

In general, strategic voting is likely to have a huge effect. I don't understand what the write-in option does, but if it allows you to vote for candidates in a different district than that would allow votes to be used to disloge more influential members of an opposing party against the wishes of the district that candidate actually represents.

In any case, always interesting to learn about possible voting methods :).

IMO, limiting the effectiveness of strategic voting is one of the most important things a voting method should do, while also not electing anyone who would heavily lose in two candidate races vs. any of the other candidates. I don't think it needs to be strictly Condorcet, but the further away from that a method gets (at least when geographic representation is involed) the less reasonable it seems in a lot of ways IMO.

I've been thinking about the possibility of a parallel system where the grographical representation part is non-partisan. I think this might work if geographical representatives are allowed and expected to allocate their vote on a given issue proportionally to how the people they represent would vote on that issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Eliminating first past the post would go a long way.

</comment><comment><USER18> Instead of using math to rewrite districts, do something else:

Change the ballot.

Ranked voting is better than First Past the Post (what we use) but the one with the BEST statistical properties and simplest exanation is the Approval Vote.

Simply be able to mark more than one candidate.

This way Bernie or Bloomberg could have run and taken the whole thing. As opposed to staying out because of fear "a vote for X is a vote against Y".

Maine did it. They switched! Now 49 more states to go.

This can be done at a local level in some places. Any district that does this will become less politically polarized and people won't be so fearful and hate each other less :)

</comment><comment><USER19> This article from 2013 puts it at D+7.1 overall for the House:

[http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/who- gerrymande...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/who-gerrymanders- more-democrats-or-republicans/)

What surprises me, though, is how little attention is given to caucuses in the US presidential primaries. The turnout is very low and they're subject to strong arming and party insider corruption in both major parties.

<comment><USER20> Well speaking just for myself, I honestly would prefer an even more party insiders driven process for the primaries. Too much democracy seems to lead to insane levels of populism leading to characters like Trump. At any rate, US democracy guarantees one a vote in the general -- parties are private orgs and it's not "corrupt" or "wrong" for them to select candidates however they want.

<comment><USER21> Except since there's no chance for a 3rd party, these two parties hold too much power and it suddenly matters much more. If it was like other countries with tons of parties that rise and fall, you'd be correct.

Also what do you mean by insane levels of populism? Isn't that just a derogatory way to say "what the people want"?

<comment><USER20> There would be more of a chance for a 3rd party if people bothered to care about the house rather than just the presidency...

But yeah, today there's little chance. But so what? _Plenty_ of progress, far more than today was made in the past before the primary system. Several great presidents (including Lincoln, FDR, TDR) came from the old process. Meanwhile the new process gave us Trump...Not to mention, tons of members of Congress afraid to do anything sensible because they are too afraid of primary challenges by hyper partisan people on their side.

UK doesn't have a primary system (mostly -- they did for Labour who are now saddled with Corbyn) and they don't have a stupidly gridlocked govt. Neither does Canada. Both of those countries have politics dominated by mostly 2-3 parties. In fact almost no country on Earth has it to the level that the US does.

Re:"what people want" \-- for one thing what people want is often contradictory. For another, there's a reason why the US doesn't have mob rule by majority. What people want is not always coherent or wise. IMO our goal as a society should be a functioning govt and a liberal polity for which democracy is a means. But by no means is democracy a good in an of itself for me at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The problem is with the idea of representative democracy at all. If the electorate is smart enough to figure out that Candidate A is _both_ correct on a range of policy matters _and_ of a trustworthy nature, then why are they not smart enough to decide directly on said policy matters?

Governments should be composed solely of civil servants drawn from academia and other fields in which they need to prove their knowledge and competence. Their job would be to advise on and implement the policy goals chosen by ballot measures.

Figuring out some way to allow direct ballot/referendum securely and efficiently would be more welcome than re-jigging the USA to bring it into line with one of the other countries that has an elite class shuffling between ruling in the interests of businesses and remunerating themselves as leaders of those businesses.

<comment><USER23> Just like I hire a person to fix my car, or hire a person to fly the planes I sometimes travel on, we hire people to handle running the country for us. It's an abstraction of labor. I _really_ don't want to be bothered with every little tiny decision about budget or foreign policy.

That said, people in the US are _so busy_ that they don't have any time at all to even make informed decisions on who to elect to run the city/state/country for them. This is a problem...people need to work less, but good luck solving that one with a crippled economy and enormous wealth disparities.

In principle, I agree with you...we have the technology to allow referendum voting, and it would certainly make for a more representative government. However, I think time, understanding, and human nature are large barriers. Also, don't think that just because people can vote directly means they won't be easily swayed by ruling-class propaganda. A good example is when cities try to install their own fiber infrastructure and Comcast rolls in and convinces everyone it's somehow communism. That doesn't go away just because people have a more direct rule.

I think a representative republic still makes sense for our day and age. Gerrymandering _is_ a huge issue and should be dealt with...along with lobbying and other forms of (very obvious) corporate intervention in our republic.

<comment><USER24> I think allowing to specify what percent of your tax goes into what 'pre- canned' list of causes, would allow a way for folks to influence the politicians outside of the 'election process', and, without, full blown on- line-referendum surveys for all the issues.

Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low- income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds.

<comment><USER25> The problem is, I, and the typical taxpayer, is not qualified to make an informed decision about budget allocations. When I want to know where to spend my tax dollar, It is not sufficient to know how I value the causes, but rather how I value them relative to their existing budget allocations, and how useful additional money would be to them.

For instance, I may value national defense and our military in the abstract. However, if I look at the actual budget, think we overspend and that the _marginal_ value of an additional dollar is small because of diminishing returns.

In contrast, I am sure that there are government programs that provide me great benefit but that I do not know or think about. This proposal would require every government cause to engage in large scale marketing, which is wastefully expensive, and would likely result in inefficient allocations.

>Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds.

We could avoid this problem entirely by giving every voter an equal slice of the government budget to allocate.

<comment><USER24> I think, my recommendation, would create more informed voter base. Mostly because lobbyist would have to reach out to the voters, rather than to the politicians. Additionally, perhaps, letting a voter to 'forego' his/her right for the allocation could be allowed. This way you can choose to forego the right, while others would keep it.

<comment><USER26> So we're opening a whole new floodgate of lobbyist propaganda?

<comment><USER22> Lobbyists currently do not even need to use propaganda. They just need to provide a sufficient monetary reward to the smaller number of people's "representatives". It is much easier to bribe/suborn a few people than the entire electorate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> One of the most reasonable rules I've heard IMO for deterring voting districts:

> In each section (at first a state, etc), find a dividing line that splits > the population in two.

This seems somewhat reasonable, and there's no way for humans to bias it.

Here's some pictures of what this looks like [1], and the write up of this idea [2]

[1]:[http://rangevoting.org/alRS.png](http://rangevoting.org/alRS.png)

[2]:[http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html](http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html)

<comment><USER28> The problem is not bias, but uneven representation. We can get uneven representation without bias quite easily: I've not ran your system in practical terms, but I'd be very surprised if, in the US, this gave you republican house majorities even when they lose the popular vote. The reason is simple: Republican voters are more dispersed geographically, so it's very hard for them to get clumped into a district where they have an overwhelming advantage.

This is why plenty of people prefer to do things like maximize the chance that a voter feels well represented, or minimize the safety of incumbents, instead of going for something that leads to simple lines.

Another important problem of straight lines is that it ignores the physical limitations of actual voting: Each voting location is expensive (go ask in North Carolina, where magical budget cuts make it harder to vote in areas that tend to vote democratic). inconvenient, mathematical lines will give you higher average costs to get to your own polling place, and will require more polling places, or places that have to corral different people to different booths with different options. Good luck doing that without doing everything fully digitally, which is, IMO, not necessarily a good idea.

<comment><USER29> > magical budget cuts make it harder to vote in areas that tend to vote > democratic

Once and again the divisiveness of the US politics keeps astonishing me. This would never fly in my home country, even reading this here is repulsive in its unfairness. Sure the parties push their own ideologies, but luckily a fair election still seems to be a sacred concept.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> If you redesign the districts to be purely on population you'll skew policy so hard towards urban life that you destroy the rural, agricultural base of the country.

If you care at all about being provided with food, it is unwise to ignore those who live outside of a city or you cut your own throat.

Democrats don't seem to get this because they care too much about their social issues, and Republicans aren't much better about this for the last decade.

Only Trump seems to have figured this out and smartly got rural America on his side.

</comment><comment><USER31> The real solution to preventing gerrymandering is to get rid of congressional districts altogether, and move to proportionally representative delegations from each state. Afterall, there is absolutely no constitutional basis for partitioning states into districts.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think we need approval voting.

<comment><USER33> Is this like.. where you choose 1, 2, 3?

so if I choose

1\. Dem 2\. Green 3\. Repub

and you chose

1\. Repub 2\. Green 3\. Dem

They'd all be equal? (four points each)

<comment><USER9> I think you are moving this up with ranked choice. Approval voting allows you to vote for every option either ones or not at all. So you either approve of the option or not. If you want you can vote for everyone. However, that's the same as voting for nobody. You could however also vote for everybody except for one option. That would be the equivalent of voting against somebody. Example ballots could be:

Voter one: Green - yes; dem - yes; rep - no. Voter two: Green - yes; dem - no; rep - yes. This would result in the green party winning in the above example.

The vote would be very close if not identical to approval ratings we frequently see for various candidates. This would have probably gotten us Bernie, since he was the only candidate running at all with favorable approval ratings. Both candidates who made it beyond the primaries were disliked by the majority, which is unfortunate to say the least.

As an added benefit we could completely leave off primaries if we want. There is very little spoiler effect in this system.

<comment><USER34> > There is very little spoiler effect [under approval voting].

Why do you believe this?

<comment><USER9> Because there is much less reason to strategically vote for your second choice in order to prevent a candidate you definitely don't want. A friend of mine who is very active in this area also claims there are studies about this. But I've honestly never read them. It seems intuitively true to me. Which I acknowledge is not ideal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Geometry of Redistricting: Summer School [http://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/](http://sites.tufts.edu/gerrymandr/)

It is open to the public and free of charge

</comment><comment><USER36> [http://scorevoting.net/GerryExamples.html](http://scorevoting.net/GerryExamples.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> I knew Jonathan Mattingly when I was an undergrad, cool guy

</comment><comment><USER38> Sortition >> Voting

<comment><USER39> I think this is a really interesting idea, and I would love to see it tried in a modern government. There are a lot of potential problems, but possibly less than those involved with voting.

<comment><USER38> From what I understand, the US legal system has the jury duty as a form of sortition, who make life or death decisions.

It is a solution to make the governing bodies more inclusive and representative, which is the title of the article. No winner takes all, no fake news, no votes buying, no suspicious campaign donations, probably no 2 party system, less oligarchies, corruption and nepotism. What is not to like _? Wikipedia [1] does list a couple of points, all debatable and /or easily countered imo.

I also happen to like how seamlessly it integrates with the current representative model and remains scalable as opposed to more direct approaches.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Disadvantages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Disadvantages)

_from the average voter pov, who benefit little to none from the current establishment in this presumption

<comment><USER39> The big difference that I see from juries, is that juries only choose from a fairly limited selection of possibilities, and they have a few specifically identified professionals (the judge and the lawyers for each side) who guide them through the process. With an actual government, there are only a few constraints and everything else is open to them. There are also thousands of interested parties trying to influence them instead of just two. That would make their job much more challenging than being a juror. It could potentially end up handing more power to lobbyists because of the inexperience of the people in power and resulting in more corruption because there are no longer have to hide it to ensure re-election.

<comment><USER38> I mean it is already practiced in some form, this is not a whole new concept.

Of course, there are discussions to be held about the implementation details, including the governments reach and the checks and regulations. A lot can be argued about what political experience brings to the table (imo bad things for the very large part, but that is a ugly can of worms). Personally, I would trust my neighbor more to do The Right Thing, than any career politician.

Nevertheless, a sampling based method is much more representative and more in line with the rule of the people idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Sorry to nitpick, but the headline should be "The mathematicians who want to save the "American" democracy".

</comment><comment><USER41> Does it fix [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud)

</comment><comment><USER42> Spare me, if Hillary Clinton had won "mathematicians" would be off jerking around doing something else.</comment>


America's Missile That Uses Sword Blades Instead of Explosives Has Struck Again - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31375/americans-hellfire-missile-that-uses-swords-instead-of-explosives-struck-again-in-syria <comment><USER2> Regarding man in the loop: if you're a bystander, (and not the target) you want a drone attacking the primary target as opposed to a manned platform.

With a manned platform, you have a chance of getting hit by a platform with a rear weapons officer, (F-15E, F/A-18) to verify minimal bystanders. But they're probably concentrating on not missing. Or you can get hit by a single occupancy aircraft (F-16, F-35) who will be dropping pre programmed ordinance.

With a drone, you have three separate teams of people watching the video steam. Anyone in that loop can say, "hey there are a lot of civilians here" and everything's on pause until the target moves.

And now we have an explosiveless munition with limited opportunities for collateral damage and this outlet is falling over themselves talking about gruesome it is.

Having worked in the field makes me really sick of ignorant journalists reporting on it. The outrage the antiwar press tends to carry makes their ignorance more annoying than the journalists talking about AGI, quantum computing, or deep learning.

<comment><USER3> I want to agree with you, insofar as that being outraged over what appears to be a more precise weapon makes very little sense.

On the other hand, it still seems horrible to kill people by remote control. Supposing it becomes possible to very, very precisely kill exactly who you want, from far away, with no judicial process, etc., is this good?

War should be painful for both sides, because if it is not, what stops us from engaging in it?

<comment><USER4> > Supposing it becomes possible to very, very precisely kill exactly who you > want, from far away, with no judicial process, etc., is this good?

This is only possible if the killing happens in total secrecy. The court of public opinion is a judicial process, and an important one, despite having only informal procedures.

<comment><USER5> The court of public opinion is open to desensitization and gaming. You can actually reach the point where people are killed merely to test limits within a safe backlash or to keep the public desensitized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a good thing. Less casualties than what happens with explosive warheads.

<comment><USER7> Yes and the past few articles I've seen about these have actually been largely (and pleasantly) impartial. Unfortunately this hasn't stopped my from reflexively scrutinizing them for some angle.

<comment><USER8> Someone is dead, and by state actors. It's not wrong to scrutinize deaths ordered by the state.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For comparison a car being taken out by an old Hellfire missile [https://youtu.be/dLv-7zqHdF4?t=12](https://youtu.be/dLv-7zqHdF4?t=12)

The old one was really overkill for a couple of guys in a car, more designed to be used against tanks and probably sent shrapnel a considerable distance.

<comment><USER10> It can be, but I've seen people walk away from a Hellfire vehicle strike. My guess in that particular video is that there was a secondary explosion from the gas tank.

<comment><USER11> Weird shit happens with explosives. My friend I deployed with has a foot long piece of shrapnel that almost hit him and a couple other people.

Could be a gas tank though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article's assertion that a man-guided weapon would somehow be more accurate and consistent than a computer-guided weapon following a target- designating laser strikes me as needing some supporting arguments.

<comment><USER10> It isn't that a manually guided weapon is inherently more accurate, it's that manual guidance requires real-time video, which allows more eyeballs.

When the spotter identifies a building, and someone else tries to correlate that description to a set of coordinates, and then a GBU is dropped to those coordinates... human error can lead to target mismatch, resulting in terrible tragedies like the Kunduz hospital incident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The accompanying 'explanation' article suggests such a missile would kill anyone within 3.5 feet of landing.

I'd need to go measure, but it seems the driver of a car and a passenger seated in the back seat (opposite the driver) would not both be killed. So it should be aimed _at maybe one or two people_ , while others in the car might live.

Pretty amazing. Reduced deaths are a good thing, and it diminishes the value of innocent 'human shield' usage.

<comment><USER7> I think that's 3.5' radius (edit:wrong). Both hits I've seen online have been center-punched in the middle of the roof of the car...amazing precision.

<comment><USER4> The article is ambiguous on this:

> the missile, which is roughly three and a half feet wide when its blades are > extended

That really sounds like a diameter and not a radius. But on the other hand:

> Supposedly, three people were killed in the vehicle when the bladed weapon > smashed through the roof of the vehicle.

<comment><USER14> From an earlier article on the same site [0]:

> The payload area is roughly a foot and a half long and let's say the swords > are roughly the same length, this would provide about a three and a half > foot diameter kill zone, which is similar to what we see in the images of > the vehicles that have been struck.

So it seems like 3.5ft diameter is The Warzone/The Drive's best guess based on the length of a standard Hellfire and the vehicle damage.

[0] [https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31310/this-photo- prove...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31310/this-photo-proves-how- the-hellfire-missile-that-uses-blades-instead-of-explosives-works)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't really understand how it works. Do the blades move? Are the blades deployed just before impact or after? Or is it basically a sword-wielding boring machine that cuts through the target with sheer speed?

<comment><USER16> It's likely something similar to how mechanical broadheads work. The blades are situated so that in flight they are held closed with a small plastic retaining ring but on impact with the target the blades cam open. It's very low-tech but very effective. Here's some slow-mo shots of mechanicals in action:

[https://youtu.be/6dv1QySWQ6I](https://youtu.be/6dv1QySWQ6I)

[https://youtu.be/PZjEhk-CkKc](https://youtu.be/PZjEhk-CkKc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a good thing. Surgical strikes will have lower casualties.

The amount of precision required to kill a moving vehicle without harming other vehicles is impressive.

<comment><USER18> Hopefully it'll result in fewer innocent deaths. Though I can still see ways for this to go wrong. Become overconfident in our ability to hit a target and then miss. Not to mention, a lot of the innocent casualties of American bombing haven't come from using bombs but from just picking the wrong target to begin with.

<comment><USER19> Sure, but if they miss (or pick the wrong target), it's _still_ fewer innocent casualties.

<comment><USER18> Oh sure. I'd rather they shoot this at someone than a fricken hellfire missile. But how much did it cost to develop? We still have the possibility that just assassinating people from the sky at all creates more terrorists than it kills. In which case we're expeding a lot of effort to solve the wrong problem.

<comment><USER19> It's my impression that the _collateral damage_ was creating more terrorists. I'm not sure that just "death from above" of terrorists is the issue.

<comment> xkcd-sucks In the absence of any really really convincing evidence to the contrary, it seems like remote control assassinations by a foreign power actively work against winning the hearts and minds of the local populace. Unless the locals getting assassinated are truly despised by everyone around them. After all, they have to take it as a matter of faith that they themselves can't possibly be "wrongly" targeted, and precedent suggests otherwise

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> warning: very graphic video embedded in post with shredded bodies.

</comment><comment><USER21> Don't most air to air (or surface to air) missiles operate on a similar principle? The explosive warhead itself is not usually what destroys the enemy aircraft, but rather, the warhead is set to detonate within _proximity_ of the enemy plane, releasing a bunch of metal shrapnel that acts like a spinning buzzsaw and literally shreds nearby aircraft to pieces (look at pictures of the recovered MH17 wreckage for evidence of this pattern).

<comment><USER22> This isn't shrapnel. Most bombs involve some kind of killing power via shrapnel. This one doesn't even seem to explode. It just extends six, 3 foot long swords from the main body prior to impact, dicing everything in the immediate radius. Precisely because of the lack of shrapnel/explosion, the risk of collateral damage to nearby people is supposedly greatly reduced. As long as you aren't within the killing radius of the blades, you theoretically shouldn't be harmed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not a fan of targeted assassinations, but if the US is going to do them, at least with a weapon like this they can largely avoid the injury and death of innocent bystanders.

<comment><USER24> I know targeted assassination is frowned on but I don't know why. Surely leaders trying to assassinate each other is better than sending teenagers to die by the thousands while the leaders stay home and benefit.

<comment><USER25> In theory, requiring full scale war disincentivizes war, so a peaceful solution is more likely. If targeted assassinations became the norm, you'd probably end up in a scenario where the country with the most advanced assassination techniques could exert much more influence since they wouldn't have to try and justify it to their own population. The most powerful country would basically be a vengeful god; completely untouchable and capable of smiting anyone that doesn't fall in line.

<comment><USER26> As opposed to the amazing world where the nation with the ability to field the biggest and best conventional force is the hegemon. I'm struggling to see the ethical difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> coming soon: cars with 4 inch steel plates welded on roof.

<comment><USER12> An anti-tank kinetic energy round (non-explosive) can penetrate foot-thick armor when fired horizontally, much more when fired straight down from an aircraft.

<comment><USER28> Nobody is firing an anti-tank KE round out of a drone. If an AC-130 is shooting at you well then you have other problems. For someone who is particularly concerned about this threat model it wouldn't be hard to stick a concealed plate in the roof. Probably won't stop the missile but will probably prevent the "blades" from coming through or at least prevent them from coming through expanded.

<comment><USER12> I was mostly lampooning the threat model implied by base-model Hyundai with 4-inch solid steel roof, but why can't an MQ-9 fire a KE weapon? Aren't they light and compact compared to the 500-pound munitions the MQ-9 is capable of delivering? People think "drone" and don't realize the MQ-9 is bigger than the A-10.

<comment><USER27> They can. They can also fire "bombs" but we're talking about this particular weapon. It all depends how it was designed, for all we know it was designed to just penetrate a normal car roof. It might be a cat and mouse game for a while, and the cost of adding some sort of armor is virtually zero for them. Who knows, it might work.

Pretty sure they can also make a missile that fires 20 30mm rounds, 10 yards or whatever distance is needed to pepper the entire car, before crashing in the car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Glad it's more precise in theory, but a) why are we fighting again? b) So often they kill the wrong person anyway because it's so easy for them to kill, why bother with being extra careful on the confirmation? c) Trump, in 2017, loosened further the already weak safeguards on conducting strikes, so the number of civilian casualties has increased. d) Why are we fighting again?

EDIT: 2018 -> 2017, my how time flies.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170414143558/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170414143558/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/rules- of-engagement-military-force-mattis.html)

<comment><USER8> The narrative direction for "drone strike tech" doesn't really allow us to ask "what is this for again". The main direction of the narrative is supposed to be "wow, look at how many more "terrorists" we can kill without killing civilians". Of course, the whole process for who and how someone gets slapped with the plastic term "terrorist" and how it's decided they should die isn't to be brought into the picture.

<comment><USER29> Yea, that's why it's so important to remind people when these gee whiz tech articles come out that this is just literally war propaganda for a 100% illegal war.</comment></comment></comment>


Achaemenid Shields Are a Puzzle - <AUTHOR> https://bookandsword.com/2020/06/06/achaemenid-shields-are-a-puzzle/ <comment><USER2> Maybe the answer is all of the above.

The Achaemenid empire was a massive empire, stretching from the Danube to the Indus river, from the steppes of southern Russia in the north, to the Nubian desert in the south. At its height, it probably ruled over 45% of the world's population, something no empire has ever reached since.

There are 4 rivers systems that are the cradles of ancient civilization: Nile, Tigris/Euphrates, Indus, Yellow. The Achaemenid empire controlled 3 of the 4 at its height: Nile, Tigris/Euphrates, Indus.

Such a vast empire, drew its military from all over. Many ethnic units fought with their traditional weaponry. In addition, such a large army had it's specialized units from the cavalry to the elite Immortals. Each were equipped to maximize their effectiveness.

Thus, it is likely that all these types of shields were relatively common depending on the battle. Perhaps different shields were used by different soldiers in different configurations or battles or terrain.

One thing though. For all its might and power, the Achaemenid empire found itself curiously vulnerable the Greek Hoplite and later the Macedonian Phalanx. Such are the vagaries of history.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Achaemenid empire is known for having assimilated conquered cities into itself without having destroyed their existing cultural and religious systems.

I'm just theorizing here, but it seems to me that conscription of local military units into the empire's vast army would follow a similar tack, whereby new soldiers are not stripped of their existing identity in the process of becoming Persian soldiers. In light of such an attitude, a usable but unusual shield or weapon belonging to a conscript would not necessarily be worth replacing.

<comment><USER4> That is how they are depicted in Takhteh Jamsheed (aka Persepolis). In the first pic from the OP, you will note Persian soldiers have the flutted hats, and the Medes have the round hat.

Apadanah depicts the procession of Nations that presented themselves at Spring Soltice (Persian NoRouz literally "New Day") to the court, in their national garb:

[https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/apadana-in- persepolis-p...](https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/apadana-in-persepolis- procession-of-the-delegations-of-the-vassal-of-picture- id640265343?s=2048x2048)

<comment><USER4> [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Xerxes_a...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Xerxes_all_ethnicities.jpg)</comment></comment></comment>


Wrap on integer overflow is not a good idea - <AUTHOR> https://www.viva64.com/en/b/0589/ <comment><USER2> It's just the faster method we know. It's not about safety, it's about speed.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the best resources to learn Product Design? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> This site has a lot of good general tips for web UI/UX design backed by some statistical data: [http://goodui.org](http://goodui.org)

<comment><USER3> Cool site, but why are they showing ideas with negative (ineffective) results?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Always go back to the classics

* The Design of Everyday Things * Design for the Real World * A Pattern Language * Notes on the Synthesis of Form * Never Leave Well Enough Alone * Don't Make Me Think * How Things Don't Work * Usable Usability * The Visual Display of Quantitative Information * A Theory of Fun for Game Design

Other left-field books I've found myself going back to for design inspiration more than I would've thought

* The Death and Life of Great American Cities * The Philosophy of Andy Warhol * Influence by Robert Caldini * Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human * The Art of Looking Sideways * Cosmos * Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth * The Theory of Moral Sentiments

And just specifically for computer UX, Smashing UX Design is a pretty good crash course.

</comment><comment><USER5> Mark Miller's class "The Science of Great UI" at DevIQ is pretty awesome. He teaches principles of design and ease of use and then shows example after example in the physical and digital realms.

</comment><comment><USER6> I feel like there aren't really good resources. I feel like good product is fundamentally asking yourself question "why does this suck", "do I/the user really need this", "what is the user trying to accomplish when using this" and trying to come up with answers.

<comment><USER7> Agree. It is about seeing the problem as a whole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have not found any that have really helped me. On my own food side project, the best thing I have done is try to eat my own dogfood. See what works for myself and what is not working and try to fix that.

</comment><comment><USER9> On the job - go find a product design consulting firm to work for.

</comment><comment><USER10> This site is good as well : [https://www.reallygoodux.io/](https://www.reallygoodux.io/)

<comment><USER11> This doesn't seem to teach "really good UX" \- it instead teaches UX that directly drives business value (upsells, conversion rates, etc). While that's certainly valuable, I would call that growth hacking design rather than product design.</comment></comment>


The Examined Life, Age 8 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/education/edlife/18philosophy-t.html?src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/education/edlife/index.jsonp&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> See also <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/children/> and a wonderful book by Gareth Matthews, "Dialogues with Children."

<comment><USER3> _TIM (about six years), while busily engaged in licking a pot, asked, "Papa, how can we be sure that everything is not a dream?" (p. 1)_

Am I Chuang-Tzu, dreaming I am a butterfly, or a butterfly, dreaming I am Chuang-Tzu?</comment></comment>


Good sites for quizzers / interesting facts? - <AUTHOR> I remember a website uselessknowledge.com back in the days (it's an expired domain now) which was frequented by several quizzers I knew for discovery of factoids / trail chains which led to further reading.<p>What are the recommended sources / sites these days? <comment><USER2> Wikipedia.

Today I Learned on Reddit.

Also old people. It's an analog resource. :)</comment>


Ask HN: Comments are disabled in this story, why? - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/t8qF6go.png

<comment><USER2> It is a job listing by a YC company, one of the perks of being part of the game.</comment>


The Neural Buddhists: "...[S]cience and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other." - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> Well that had zero content.

<comment><USER3> So does your comment...

<comment><USER4> Not really. I decided to read the comments, to see whether the article was worth reading. Thanks to the "zero content" comment, I've decided not to bother. Time saved!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazing, that perfectly resonates with how i see it :)</comment>


Russ Nelson on Speculation WRT PG's "Mind the Gap" Essay - <AUTHOR> http://blog.russnelson.com/2008/09/17#in-defense-of-speculators

<comment><USER2> I wasn't claiming speculation has no good effects, just that speculators don't create wealth. You don't have to create wealth to have good effects on the world. Good laws, for example, have good effects without creating wealth.

<comment><USER3> Can a law create wealth?

<comment><USER2> I doubt it, but the edge cases of what counts as wealth creation and what doesn't are so hard that I'd want to think more about it before saying for sure.

<comment><USER4> I think a good law will create wealth if it enables a mutually beneficial transaction that would not otherwise be possible.

For example, a law against breach of contract makes you more likely to hire someone you don't know well. That person gets a job, you get an employee, so you're both better off. As long as this benefit is greater than the cost of enforcing the law, that law has created wealth.

I recommend _Law's Order_ by David Friedman for a whole lot more on this subject. It's a fascinating introduction to the application of economics to law.

<comment><AUTHOR> For pedantry's sake, this sounds like enabling wealth rather than creating it. The wealth doesn't originate with the law, so isn't created by it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Flter: OpenVPN, adblocking, and Tor all at the router level - <AUTHOR> https://flter.me <comment><USER2> Their homepage defaults to HTTP. Holds no water for me from the beginning.

<comment><USER3> That does not seem to be the case for me within Chrome, Firefox or Internet Explorer.</comment></comment>


Plausibility vs. Inference - <AUTHOR> http://www.denizyuret.com/2011/01/plausibility-vs-inference.html

<comment><USER2> > I gave the book to Mary. => Mary has the book.

The poster says the above is exact inference. I beg to disagree. The inference is plausible but not exact. How do we know that Mary has not given the book to someone else, or even how do we know that Mary hasn't eaten the book for dinner? We humans know that books are not tasty, but how would a machine know that if we don't tell it?

Of course we need a plausibility model. My point is only that exact inferences are extremely rare, and that almost all inferences we make on daily basis are plausibility inferences based on an extremely comprehensive model of the world.</comment>


Ask HN: Getting back into the working world with a negative track record - <AUTHOR> Hello,
I'm trying to re-enter the working world, but I face the problem that my track record is mostly negative...
On the positive side there are a finished apprenticeship and a bachelor in CS.
On the negative side, I got fired from two successful companies within a year of joining them because of conflicts with my bosses (in one case I refused to work on a project, in the other case I was obviously too critical when completing the assessment questionnaire about my boss). Furthermore I left a startup after about three months because I didn't get along with one of the other co-founders. Followed by a long time with psychic and health issues.
Another obstacle is that I'm an introvert loner and hence just the opposite of the "communicative teamplayer" companies seem to be looking for.
So far all responses to my CV/resume were negative.
Any ideas on how to get back into the working world with such a track record? <comment><USER3> My free advice, and worth every penny ...

Others will offer advice about where to apply to work (startups), and what to do in the meantime to be able to demonstrate your skills (github/OpenSource). I'll talk about my personal experience in the introvert/communication problem.

If you work in and/or for a company you will need to communicate. You need to receive guidance/instruction from those who are assigning you work, you need to pass the fruits of your labors back to your work colleagues and/or bosses.

No matter how much of a genius you may be, you have to communicate effectively.

I never could, until I was forced into a situation where I knew I was going to have to learn how to get along with people. This was in the mid 1970s - <USER2> was no internet, no home computers, no mobiles, and if you wanted information you got it from people or books. So I went and found a book that I could use as a blueprint for how to get along with people.

I used "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

These days it's terribly dated, but I picked up one of my copies the other day and dipped into it. Allowing for the language and the scenarios used, it seemed like it would be as effective today as it was for me some 35 years ago.

But you can't just read it, you have to study, reflect, and apply what you've just read. The book itself says that, exhorting you to read a chapter, then put it into deliberate practice.

It may not work for you, but I can pretty much guarantee that the one thing that won't work is not making the effort.

ADDED IN EDIT: I should add that there are people who hate me, and others that I get along with _really_ well. This is my story - yours will be different. I tell it here not as an absolute, but as something to consider.

<comment><USER4> > I used "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

This is an interesting citation. I haven't personally read it but I recall an interview on NPR wherein an author (I can't remember his name now) recalled a year of elementary school during which he read this book and attempted to implement its techniques. The result? Both his peers and the teachers were left confused and unsure how to react to his methods that he had garnered from the book. Some people seemed to think he was trying to manipulate them while others were just unused to such unnatural social interaction. So that's completely anecdotal, after all who knows what a kid really would know about the advice of such a book or how he might have (wrongly or rightly) interpreted the book. Still I found it fascinating, the reactions he described. It made me wonder if you can really create a so-called "blueprint" for social interaction?

<comment><USER5> It was written in a different time so the language and examples are archaic and would look odd now, but the principles are the same.

To paraphrase badly, there's examples along the lines of "So I laid my hat on the desk, asked his girl to fetch us some coffee and said '...so let's name the company after you'. He took the deal.".

Following that to the letter would likely get you kicked out (ie. wearing a fedora to a business meeting makes you look like a loon, summoning the nearest woman to fetch you coffee would likely get you a dirty look or a lawsuit) but the underlying principle of giving up credit to the other guy so everyone gets what they want is still a valuable principle.

You can't create word-for-word scripts for social interaction as context varies wildly between situations, locations and time periods - but there are underlying principles of interaction that can be modeled and learned, especially by those who are not naturally gifted with communication skills.

(Some other fascinating books on this subject: Robert Cialdini's Influence and Eric Berne's Games People Play)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Being an introvert loner is not a permanent condition, and you can put in work to improve how you socialize and relate to other people.

Just like with any other worth-while self-improvement process this will require you to step out of your comfort zone.

A great way to to both improve your social skills and improve your job prospects is to start going to local networking events and meetups associated with the technologies you are interested in.

Set a goal for yourself to talk to atleast one or two new people. At first it will seem contrived, but think of it like going to the gym, and talking to people like exercise. Eventually as you improve, you will find that you actually enjoy it.

The point is that you have to expend conscious effort to improve this aspect of your life.

</comment><comment><USER7> Well, before you get back into the workforce, you could try acting more likeable. You might disagree with something but you can choose not to let them know. And if your boss hired to to work on a project, don't refuse to do it; otherwise what did he hire you for? It's like signing up to be a cleaner but refusing to mop the floor.

I don't know about your CV/resume, maybe you can reformat it so we can view it anonymously but still get the gist of it and comment? (Delete your name, your previous company names, organisational names, project names, school names, marks, copy and paste and change the font to plain text format, use your imagination).

<comment><AUTHOR> > And if your boss hired to to work on a project, don't refuse to do it; > otherwise what did he hire you for?

The project was in a programming language I didn't know (and it wasn't used at the company) with a tight schedule. And I knew I wouldn't be able to finish it in time in the quality I want to provide. Plus as a Java developer I wasn't that interested in that particular programming language (Perl).

How else would you handle such a situation?

<comment><USER3> Again, my $0.02 - this wouldn't work for everyone. But ...

Above all else, be positive and constructive.

For example, say that your current skills in Perl aren't great, but that you're certain you can come up to speed fairly quickly. Then point out that the work will probably not be of great quality unless you have to time to do that, and poor code executed quickly will certainly lead to more problems further down the line, so you really want to make sure that the company's code base remains clean and without unnecessary technical debt.

Then express enthusiasm again, and ask how you can work together to get the work scheduled to ensure it's of decent quality, while still meeting the company's timing requirements.

Solve the problems, and get the boss involved in solving them with you. Say that you're willing to do it, and welcome it as a learning opportunity.

A point for concern is your response that you're a Java developer with no interest in a different language. I would hope that most developers would welcome the chance to get experience in another language. New languages are either easy to pick up because they're similar to something you know, or hard to pick up because they are extending your skills and making you more able, adept and, in the longer run, valuable.

Try to see yourself as a problem solver, not just a Java programmer.

<comment><AUTHOR> > A point for concern is your response that you're a Java developer with no > interest in a different language.

It's not that I'm not interested in a different language (besides Java I use other languages, too), it's just that I was not interested in Perl.

I agree with you about the value of learning new languages, but I think you are more successful in learning a new language when you learn it because you want to learn it, and not, because you must learn it. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation.

<comment><USER8> I'm more successful in pretty much any task when I have no deadline, five highly competent assistants and a private masseur for whenever I'm feeling stressed. But if I was only willing to work that way, I'd be living on the street. Being a professional means getting the job done even in suboptimal conditions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's true, though I think being a professional also includes the option of saying "no" (on how you say it, that's another question).

<comment><USER9> No, you can only say "no" if you're a self-employed professional like a doctor or lawyer or consultant with his own practice. Then you have the choice of whether to take on a potential client or not. However, a professional who works for someone else has to take on their employer's priorities. That's the deal you sign up for when you become an employee; that's what you give up for a regular monthly paycheck.

If you're very valuable to your employer, you might be able to get away with saying "no". But most people are not indispensable, and if you say "no" too many times, your employer will start looking for ways to replace you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You could start being nice to people. Seriously. When everyone around you is in conflict, look in the mirror. We're not all extroverts, but the fact remains that business requires dealing with other people effectively, so suck it up and learn how to make people feel good. Being right is a career killer.

More directly, start networking, and change your attitude. You will find something.

</comment><comment><USER11> Have you contributed to or created any open-sourece projects? Showing that you are a good programmer, capable of shipping projects could help you overcome some of your past issues.

Like some of the others have said here, however, you need to look to way to improve yourself, not just your resume. Leaving three out of four jobs on bad terms may be a string of bad luck, but probably not. From your own admission, you have some interpersonal communication issues, and communication is a huge part of working with others. Try to look back at how your relationships with these three companies progressed and ultimately ended, and try to see how others perceived you to be. Look at things from their perspective. And as you grow as person, continue to revisit these situations and see how you'd handle them after improving your skill set.

In the meantime, if you have to work now, focus your job search on positions where you can remain relatively autonomous until you're in a better social state of mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Have you contributed to or created any open-sourece projects?

Yes, I have contributed patches/bug reports to open-source projects, but I'm not involved as a regular developer in any project. And I created some open- source projects, but they are only small libraries. Plus I'm active on StackOverflow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's a tip from improv comedy: when you hear something you don't like, don't say "No." Say "yes, but..." This one little tip can really change how you interact with people. It won't change your world by itself though. Example interaction: your new boss says, "We should switch all the Linux servers to Windows." You say, "Yes, that would help with X, but have you considered the cost?"

Also, come up with a narative that explains your resume. I know a professional person who left a good job to take another good job in their home city. The new job evaporated for reasons out of their control in less than three months. This person came up with a narative that allowed hiring managers to see past the black spot on their resume: "I had family issues to take care of in my home city, they are resolved, and now I want to return to X city."

Good luck!

<comment><USER13> Another suggestion to consider. Try not to use "but" because it is a flag that you are about to discount what you just said. Here's an alternative to the above, where you simply replace "but" with "and". (Also note saying why you like something really helps too.)

 _"Yes, I like that because it would help with X, and have you have you considered the cost?"_

Usually "but" can be replaced with "and" fairly smoothly. However, if not, you can do something like:

 _"Yes, I like that because it would help with X. I wonder how much it would cost, both for the licenses and for the effort?"_

<comment><USER12> oops, listen to F_J_H! The improv phrase is "yes, and" not "yes, but".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's plenty of (good) advice here on how to work on yourself to fit into a team environment. That's a very good idea.

You may also want to consider that it is possible you're not meant to fit in quite like that. Being an introvert is a weakness if you want to fit in to an extroverted team environment, or a strength if you want to work remotely on self-directed projects.

Introversion isn't worse than extroversion; it just means you recharge your batteries by being alone with your thoughts, and have to use your batteries to participate in group activities (the reverse is true for extroverts). Perhaps part of your frustration is trying to fit yourself, a square peg, into the round hole of a corporate team environment.

I'm assuming you're looking for CS gigs, and that you have entrepreneurial aspirations. Maybe you should hit some freelance websites to fill your coffers & stay afloat, while working on an idea of your own on the side. If you're interested/open to travel, you can significantly reduce your overhead while still making decent wages by finding a place to work from that will lower your cost of living.

I'm not saying this is the right way to go - I know nothing else about you - but it's worth considering that maybe the rest of the world is wrong, not you.

<comment><USER15> Being an introvert is not a strength in remote projects. Remote projects require better communication skills than on-side work.

<comment><USER16> It requires a different kind of (more formal) communication skills though. Of course you need to be able to report your progress, your obstacles, work out requirements, and discuss who is going to do what. This could be through IRC or through Skype or whatever...

However it is completely different from an "extraverted team environment" in which you're expected to be social and cheerful about all kinds of unrelated stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have a similar challenge, and I've found psychotherapy the most effective intervention. If you can afford it, I recommend looking for a therapist who offers both individual and group therapy. Finding a therapist is not the same as finding an excellent therapist, and everyone needs the latter. I recommend looking for recommendations from the local chapter of the American Group Psychotherapy Association.

If you cannot afford a therapist, pick up a copy of "Don't Bring It To Work" by Sylvia Lafair. The subtitle is "Breaking the Family Patterns That Limit Success". And see if there are some low-cost/sliding counseling centers in your area.

You can change, and you deserve it.

</comment><comment><USER18> Being an introvert loner is fine for plenty of jobs. Just be more diplomatic when you do interact with people; since you've learned the hard way what being undiplomatic will get you, try to use that experience to encourage yourself to smooth over the hard edges a bit in public.

Regarding your track record... is it possible to gloss over the really bad stuff? Your potential new employer doesn't have to know about your past mistakes in all their full gory detail (or even at all?). You make it sound like every new employer can find out the full story on your past, is that really actually true?

</comment><comment><USER19> Thanks for posting this. It takes a lot of balls (even with a throwaway account) to post something like this and, hopefully, only good will come out of it. If this thread goes like these kinds of threads usually go on Hacker News, I have no doubt you will have helped quite a few others with this. And hopefully, you will get help too. But that won't be easy. Here's why...

When I read your headline on the front page, the first thing I thought was, "OK, someone to help and encourage. Good." After I read your comment, I didn't feel quite the same way.

I normally try to be upbeat and positive, but in your case, it won't sound that way. I'm going to give it to you straight and I hope that you don't get offended or upset. You need feedback from my point of view.

It's perfectly normal for someone to be weak technically or with other people. It's perfectly normal for someone to struggle with work habits, project management, or personal issues. It's also perfectly normal for excellent people to have been fired. Many of us have been on both sides of these issues.

And these are the kinds of things that are easily managed and fixed.

Your issues, unfortunately, run deeper. Conflicts with bosses? OK, we've all been there. Not getting along? That happens, too. A negative assessment of your boss? Whoa. That would piss me off, too. Why didn't you just talk to him? Refusing to work on a project? WTF? That's your fucking job!

These are the kinds of things that are _not_ easily managed and fixed. I don't know why anyone would take a chance on someone with this kind of track performance. I know that I wouldn't. I'd much rather hire a weak performer with good attitude and potential than a strong performer with interpersonal issues you describe. It's just not worth the trouble.

You most telling remark, however, was:

 _Another obstacle is that I'm an introvert loner and hence just the opposite of the "communicative teamplayer" companies seem to be looking for._

As one introvert loner to another, I can confidently tell you that this is just an excuse. Almost all of us are introvert loners and almost all employers want "communicative teamplayers". And most of us just find a way to make it work.

I bet I've been in situations like yours (and worse) far more times than you and I bet many others here have too. I've been abused more ways than I care to remember. I've done the work of 5 people and been passed up for promotion. I've worked overtime for years and got no credit. I've been yelled at, cussed at, and many times, generally treated like shit. But I've learned how to put up with it until it's no longer time to put up with it. It all depends where you draw the line.

I've never had words with a boss or customer. I've never emailed, talked about someone else, or filled out any form about them without _talking to them first_. And most of all, I've _never refused work_. That's our reason for being there in the first place.

 _Any ideas on how to get back into the working world with such a track record?_

I may sound negative, but believe me, I really want to help. So here are a few thoughts:

1\. The root cause of your negative experiences is probably still there. You need to identify that cause, understand your role, and fix it. Get help with that if you think you need it. The good news: you know there's a problem and you're already talking about it. You may be 90% of the way there.

2\. Always tell the truth.

3\. Don't be afraid to admit that you may have been wrong.

4\. Be prepared to describe your experiences (truthfully always!) and what steps you have already taken to grow because of them.

5\. Don't volunteer (in writing or in person) anything that you don't have to that can potentially hurt you.

6\. _Never_ give references until _after_ you have a job offer (contingent upon those references).

7\. Find a way to have a positive attitude and make it show.

8\. Understand that there are assholes everywhere and you will surely encounter many more. You can't control them. But you must control yourself. Don't let them fuck you up any more.

I hope I haven't been too tough, but I think you needed to hear this. I wish you the best and look forward to hearing about you getting up on your feet again. If you want to refute anything I have said or need any follow-up feedback, please contact me off-line. Best wishes!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It contains a lot of things I have to think about. And no, it wasn't too tough, it is the kind of feedback I was looking for.

One clarification:

> A negative assessment of your boss? Whoa. That would piss me off, too. Why > didn't you just talk to him?

Filling out the assessment form was a required preparation for the yearly staff appraisal. You fill it out, give it to your boss and then you discuss it with him at the meeting. Though the discussion never happened in my case.

<comment><USER20> I think that's the point - why didn't you communicate major issues in private before humiliating in public?

<comment><AUTHOR> There was no public humiliation. The only person who saw the assessment form was my boss.

<comment><USER20> Glad to hear, however isn't that form added to his record/file with the company? I don't see HR shredding it. Unless I'm wrong.

<comment><USER21> If the boss deserves a negative assessment then he deserves to get one. The mistake that the OP made is believing that HR is there for low level employees and putting his true feelings on paper.

Always remember that HR is present to safeguard the company. They will look after the manager more than they look after you because he is, to the company, much more important.

OP: you need to learn what I learnt during my time in corporate America - focus on getting what u want instead of focussing on being right. When your a startup founder you can work on creating a better workplace. For now though focus on getting along with the boss. It's a way to make good money and it's a great skill to have - being able to work with difficult people.

<comment><AUTHOR> HR was never involved in this (except in doing the admin stuff after the termination).

And it wasn't about my true feelings or me being right. I enjoy analyzing and thinking about stuff, and so when you give me an assessment form with about 20 topics, you will get a (critical) analysis of them. With my thoughts on what's good and what could be improved. And many questions. For me it was like a code or design review.

<comment><USER21> Well all reviews go thru HR and its basically safer for you that way.

So your saying that a manager fired you solely on feedback u gave to him? I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Also you seem stuck on "being right". That's a lonely place to be in my friend.

<comment><AUTHOR> > So your saying that a manager fired you solely on feedback u gave to him?

Yes.

> I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Why would that be illegal?

<comment><USER21> You have to have good reason to fire an employee. There needs to be a paper trail of him not being able to do his job or him being generally insubordinate. The only thing that can legally get you fired on the spot is sexual harrasment or where you've broken the law in some manner that could affect the company.

Anyway you dont fit in to a regular command and control type organisation. Welcome to my world :) ....

Now if your generally a rebel but you do love creating things then you _might_ be an entrepreneur. First get a job and then view the job as the thing that allows you to become an entrepreneur in the future. Ie the job is your "Venture Capitalist". Save up enough so that you can quit in the future and go it on your own.

Again this means you have to put what you want before your urge to be right. This will take you about 3 years to learn. In 3 years you could have $50000 saved up and the oppurtunity of a lifetime to be an entrepreneur.

<comment><USER9> Actually, if someone is an "at-will" employee in the U.S. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment>), you don't need any reason at all to fire him. Certainly gross insubordination (such as refusing to do a job when asked) is something that people are fired for all the time. Paper trails are useful when the employee is a member of a protected class and could allege in a law suit that they were fired because they were a minority, pregnant, over 40, etc. But that doesn't seem to apply to the original poster's situation.

<comment><USER21> I'm pretty sure your wrOng. There's a reason why incompetents ate kept on payroll for so long.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Hiring has picked up these days, and this is the time to get in. Get a job you reasonably like, keep your head down and build a positive track record. If the job is shitty, don't just get fired; act like an adult and keep them happy while looking for a new one. It is much easier to get a job when you already have one. Good luck!

<comment><USER23> I second that. There's something to be said working a shitty job doing things you don't like to do and keeping your mouth shut (speaking as someone who's been there, done that). When you finally get the job that you love, you'll love it even more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't know. Based on your track record, it doesn't sound like you really want to work for someone else.

I disagree with my bosses and don't want to work on projects all of the time, but part of working for someone else is that you have to make that person happy (or at least not piss them off). So you have to compromise, and give generous assessments even if they aren't totally warranted (because in turn, you will be given a good assessment).

As an introvert loner, you will never be fully comfortable being a communicative team player, but it is something that can be worked at. (Set up reminders/mantras to essentially brainwash yourself into remembering your goals of cooperativeness and willingness to get along).

</comment><comment><USER25> You say that CV/resume responses were negative, but share things that shouldn't necessarily show up on a resume as possible reasons for failure. Resumes just get you in the door.

Most resumes are horrible. I've worked with dozens of people (nearly a hundred) to successfully improve their resumes, and I'm happy to help you too. Send me a Word doc (I can respond w/ embedded comments) or PDF (I'll put comments in a separate file). I'll shortly add my email address to my profile here.

The simplest resume/interview advice is to think of the thing at each job you're most proud of. That should be the story you tell in the first couple of bullets for each job. Most people list responsibilities. List accomplishments instead. Don't share too much; it's a common mistake.

I recommend people keep an annotated "long-form" resume as notes of all accomplishments, duties, projects, etc.; in the U.S., it's customary to only submit a single-page resume, but those extra notes are handy in building a resume. (Take some time to do an annotated long-form version, and send that too.)

As for interviewing and people skills? I may not be the best person to ask, but the above advice to get and study _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ is excellent. Perhaps the simplest summary of it's lessons is "People tend to align their behavior with how you feel about them. Sincerely care for others."

</comment><comment><USER26> Just a couple of quick points from a point of view of someone who has hired/worked with a lot different employees and freelancers.

Firstly, joining open source projects is all well and good, but this is only a part of what people are looking for. The main thing is that you can finish something. For want of a better expression: that you can "ship".

If you are someone that can consistently complete assignments and projects, then it really doesn't matter if you're introverted or not. If you are the type of person I can give a project to and I know that it will be done when you say it will be done to the quality I expect, then you can really do what you want - work from home, in the office, on a beach.

However, from your post, this is probably something that needs to be worked on. As others have said, consider joining a freelance site or similar to get a few completed projects under your belt.

Secondly: communication. Saying no is absolutely fine. It is how you say no that matters. I've had a couple of people not want to do a specific projects for me, due to cultural/ethical reasons. And this was fine. They explained their reasons why, I accepted and everyone was ok, and we still work on other projects. If they were an arse about it then most probably I would never work with them again on anything. The only advice I can offer you here is to think about it from the other person's perspective (and this works both ways).

Once you have can prove that you can get the job done, and you can communicate effectively, then you don't need to be "teamplayer" to be of value to a company.

Good luck with it

</comment><comment><USER27> You might try getting involved in some open source projects, that way you can build a network of people who have worked with you and know what you can do, but who didn't have to take a risk on hiring you, given you track record.

I don't know what your skillset consists of, but if you have any experience with mobile development (android, iphone, etc) or think you can pick it up, there's a huge demand for mobile developers, and if you build a few apps on your own and publish them to the app store/market, that gives you something to show people, instead of them only being able to check your past work history by calling up previous bosses.

Finally, if you can get stuff done, you might see about working for a startup. They will probably be much more demanding of your time, but they may be willing to give you a chance where a corporate HR person would otherwise rule you out off the cuff.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER28> You must demonstrate your ability to get along with people. Your client, your boss, your co-worker, your employee. You must be civil and decent to any and all of those people.

Your track record, as has been described, doesn't say you can do that, it says you can't.

I'd suggest a two-pronged approach: find a position where they aren't too choosy- i.e., a volunteer program, and also as you are working there, reflect on your behavior and consciously reflect on your habits with an eye towards tact and civility towards all, even in difficult circumstances.

It helps me a good deal to consider two things when dealing with people I disagree with. First, treat others as I want to be treated. Second, figure out where they are coming from and why they want the things they want.

</comment><comment><USER29> You may want to add a section to your work history in which you're an independent contractor. You can fill it in with any technologies you encountered or developed (even if it wasn't paid work). That may make the job history seem less abrupt (if that's indeed what you think is the issue).

If you're in need of more references, you may want to ask a friend to provide one or do a small task on a site like elance/rentacoder/guru and ask the employer to sign a letter of reference (you can get some nice boilerplates online). That way you can present a glowing recommendation along with your resume.

</comment><comment><USER30> Try freelancing. In my experience it tends to be a lot less bureaucratic. For example on Jobserve many gigs contain the line "if you are interested, call xyz" - no sending in a CV and waiting weeks for a response, just call (that was a few years ago, but I assume it is still like that).

Also it is normal if freelance gigs last less than a year. You don't have to write "I was fired" on your CV. I just have a section with "recent projects" and don't even specify if I was employed or freelancing.

I wasn't asked for references from previous jobs very often, either.

<comment><USER31> Except that in many cases, your clients are going to ask of you the equivalent of "write this tomorrow, in a language you don't know." In fact, I reckon freelancing is even worse in this regard, as you have no recourse--at least at a full-time job, it is likely you may have another higher-level manager to whom you can plead your case.

Telling a client "no, I can't do that" isn't going to work, because they will find someone who will, for less money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> _Followed by a long time with psychic and health issues._

I'm not sleeping too well this week, so not up for any brilliant public comments. Short version: I got into a job after 2 decades of hiding out as a homemaker because I was too overwhelmed with psych and health issues to do a full time job. So, yes, it can be done. I commented on this previously here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2293021>

Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER33> You say you want to re-enter the working world. The real question is do you want to change who you are to match the needs of the working world?

Different advise for the different answers...

</comment><comment><USER34> Hey,

If you apply for jobs that suit your personality you may get more positive feedback. Turn these points into strengths.

Some things to consider especially if you have been having various health issues is a) are you ready to take on a new role b) what would your perfect job be?

I worked in tech recruitment for a few years, I'd be happy to make a few changes to your resume if that is of any help to you. I'm my HN username at gmail

</comment><comment><USER35> have you looked at anger management? obviously, you could go see someone, but if you'd prefer to work things out yourself you might gain something from working through a book like "the angry self" by gottleib. it's not the greatest book ever - sometimes it's a bit dumb, and sometimes it feels a bit slow - but if you go through it step by step, including the exercises, you might find that it helps. i think it helped me. it starts with very basic stuff about what being angry is, then how to recognise it, then how you can deflect / control it in various ways. but the best part is at the end where it also shows how it can be a useful tool.

i'm guessing that you're getting angry and frustrated. i do too. that book helped me channel that in a more productive direction. good luck.

</comment><comment><USER36> Hello Throwaway789a, Could you post a little on your skills and any other experience you have? Are you a Developer/Designer/Consultant, etc?

</comment><comment><USER37> I don't know what your definition of team player is, but at (almost) any real job, there is shitwork. You know exactly what I mean -- maybe someone has to evaluate a new classifier, and that means spending a pair of 10 hour days looking at several thousand documents and hand labeling. Or maybe you're switching version control and someone has to go through 5k branches/release branches/tags and figure out what is needed and what isn't. Or maybe the raid array in the box that hosts artifactory shit itself and someone has to get artifactory back up, recover as many artifacts as possible, and for those that can't be recovered, find their tag in your git repo, check out, and rebuild where possible. Or maybe your company decided to swap DFSs and your project touches HDFSUtils in 873 places (just to pick a random number =P), and some sucker is going to have to go through each and every place you use that module and audit it for possible breakage during the dfs swap. Or maybe you need to upgrade from the original hadoop job api to a cascading equivalent, and you have to do this to some 80-odd production jobs; it's tedious work that has to be very carefully performed so the original semantics are preserved. Etc etc. These are all things that I or coworkers have done.

The point is, in any job, there is work that nobody wants to do but that someone has to do. ie shitwork. However, you seem like you don't want to do this. For example, sometimes your boss drops a last minute job in a language or api that you don't know or have never used or maybe actively don't want to use in your lap. Sometimes the work is already late when you get it, or it wasn't scoped or specced appropriately. It happens. Refusing to do it would reasonably get you fired, _and_ make your coworkers hate you, because your coworkers are all doing their ration of shit shoveling.

Of course, it's perfectly fair to complain if you always end up shoveling. Or if that's all the job offers, get a new one. But refusing to do it or refusing to pull your fair share is not going to get you far.

You need to decide what happens the next time you are asked to do something like this. Because the one thing I can promise about a programming career is it _will_ happen.

</comment><comment><USER38> Ok, it sounds like you have a lot to work on, personally speaking. That's not unusual; most smart people in their 20s _do_ have serious issues to work through. I don't know you, so I can't comment on that. You probably have a better sense of what you need to fix about yourself than I do.

Three job-ending personality conflicts in less than 3 years is worse than average, but not the worst I've seen. But do take the hint that you might be doing a few things wrong. You don't need to be a popular-jock type, but please do yourself a favor and bring your social skills at least up to the 35th percentile. Read books like _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ and read them seriously. (Just don't get into that sleazy PUA shit.)

Personal change is the hard part. Regarding career repair, that's much easier. Find a good recruiter and she'll help you with a lot of that. First, don't put months on your CV, just years. If you worked at a place from Nov. 2008 to Jan. 2009, put 2008-2009. If your tenure was 6/2010 to 8/2010, just put 2010 unless it was an internship (then put a season, e.g. "summer 2010"). Second, never say you were fired. Say you left of your own volition; no one can legally contradict you. If previous employers say something different, have your attorney send a C&D letter. Make sure your departure reflects positively on your ambition but not negatively on the company. Third, check your references. Use a professional reference-checking service like Allison and Taylor instead of trying to do it yourself. Find out what people are saying. If the references are damaging, bring on the C&D's. Fourth, most people with "damaged track records" are people who give away the store on their ex-employers. The "permanent record" exists, but only in your mind. If you can just learn to shut the fuck up occasionally (I'm speaking from personal experience and past mistakes, so I know how hard this can be) about the injustices you've faced it will do you favors. You can do much more damage to your enemies (if that's what you want; most people stop caring about their enemies once they're successful) by succeeding and getting into an important role later in life than you can by smearing their reputations in 20 unsuccessful (you can't throw shit without some sticking to you) interviews.

When you interview, keep the conversation technical and focus on _what you worked on_. The politics and personality conflicts you should gloss over entirely. And learn a few stock evasive answers if you get questions related to these matters. When interviewers probe you for political dirty laundry on past employers, they're not doing it because they "value" your opinion; it's either (a) a test, or (b) scouting against competitors, and neither benefits you personally.

<comment><USER39> Well, that is not strictly true, a company can perfectly legally say it would not rehire you, and the next company will read between the lines. Good luck trying to sue - if word got out that you did, you really would become unhireable.

Also, hiding gaps on the CV is a major red flag. It would be grounds for instant dismissal, it's as bad as pretending to have a qualification you don't.

<comment><USER38> _Well, that is not strictly true, a company can perfectly legally say it would not rehire you, and the next company will read between the lines. Good luck trying to sue - if word got out that you did, you really would become unhireable._

In the U.S., no. Blackballing law is extremely friendly to the employee. And no, you don't _sue_ over a bad reference. You have your attorney send a C&D letter and they fall back to the "default" reference: name, dates of employment.

Generally, you never need to sue over a bad reference. The best response to a bad reference is to replace him, ideally with someone who worked with you at the company and can vouch that, yes, you actually did good work.

 _Also, hiding gaps on the CV is a major red flag._

I didn't tell him to hide gaps. I told him to put his years of employment (not months) on his CV, e.g. 2009-2010 instead of Nov. 2009 to Jan. 2010. He may still have to put the dates on the formal application that comes later in the hiring process, but after you've had an interview, CV smells don't matter as much.

 _It would be grounds for instant dismissal, it's as bad as pretending to have a qualification you don't._

You cannot be serious. Omitting two months at a startup that didn't work out is not the moral equivalent of a quack surgeon pretending to have a medical degree. That said, from a strategic perspective, omitting a job of even 2 months is almost never a good idea because a gap is more damaging that a bad job (which can always be spun). (If it's less than 2 months, omit it; you didn't really work there.)

<comment><USER9> In the U.S., if an employer gives information about you that's factual, you'd have no grounds for suing them. If they fired the original poster, they'd almost certainly have the paperwork to prove it.

If you want to learn more about these kinds of employment issues (from both the employer's and employee's point of view), I can recommend a couple of excellent blogs:

\- Evil HR Lady: <http://www.evilhrlady.org>

\- Ask a Manager: <http://www.askamanager.org></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Firefox nightly broken on Windows  - <AUTHOR> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=947916

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's a version just built with the offending code backed out [http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2013-...](http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2013-12-09-05-34-02-mozilla- central/firefox-28.0a1.en-US.win32.installer.exe)</comment>


Seeking the Magic Mushroom (1957) - <AUTHOR> http://www.imaginaria.org/wasson/life.htm <comment><USER2> For anyone interested in this story and more you should check out Michael Pollan's book How To Change Your Mind.

It goes into quite a bit of depth on how this story came to be, the motivations, impact to culture as well as the impact to the indigenous tribe(primarily a single woman) that allowed LIFE magazine to cover this ritual.

Beyond psilocybin he covers the history of LSD, DMT and some more obscure psychedelics I hadn't heard of.

If you have no knowledge or experience with psychedelics but want to understand why they became popularized and then demonized I recommend the book highly.

<comment><USER3> Seconding this recommendation. Pollan talks about this exact article in the book, and how Eva Mendez came to sorely regret ever letting Wasson and Richardson partake in the ceremony and publish accounts of the experience.

Most incredible to me is that Pollan, late 50s with a dim view of drugs and especially psychedelics, experiments with various different drugs in order to explore and describe their effects for the audience. Great author who does his research and great book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> R. Gordon Wasson got funded by CIA [1]

Recommended read: "The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo- Christianity: A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Schism Between John M. Allegro and R. Gordon Wasson Over the Theory on the Entheogenic Origins of Christianity Presented in the Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" [2] (as well as the original by John Allegro)

Here is a rare interview of John Allegro with Van Kooten & De Bie from 1976, Dutch public broadcast TV [3]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Gordon_Wasson#CIA_funding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Gordon_Wasson#CIA_funding)

[2] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5676801-the-holy- mushroo...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5676801-the-holy-mushroom#)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOu9tV6uy2E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOu9tV6uy2E)

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting, having ingested mushrooms some 30 or 40 times (at least, but whose counting) I've rarely experienced the vivid hallucinations the author describes. Even when having ingested up to five grams. I wonder if being in darkness, as the author was, aids in this. Perhaps with no other visual stimuli, the mind and the mushrooms can really take hold.

I'll have to try this sometime.

<comment><USER6> Last time I got a vivid experience, i took almost 40 grams of fresh hawaian truffles.

Not advising you should take that much of course. Or even suggesting you take it again. Just saying if you feel like it, you can up the dose a quite a bit, put a blindfold in a cozy bed in a safe and quiet room, and the result may differ.

Also everybody is different. Some people just don't react much to psylocibin and there is nothing one can do :)

<comment><USER5> In my experience, 40 grams is an absolutely absurd amount to take of anything (beyond alcohol) to get a mind-altering state. I can achieve a reasonably altered state from just a gram of mushrooms and a mild high on just 500mg.

<comment><USER6> Again, i'm not recommanding anything. I'm just saying uping the dose a lot is on the table.

<comment><USER5> As Roger Murtaugh would say, "I'm getting too old for this shit."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>