VotePlz – The Easiest Way to Vote - <AUTHOR> https://voteplz.org <comment><USER2> How is this ethical: YC funds Vote.org as part of YC S16. Vote.org is a voter registration platform broadly similar to VotePlz, but with fewer emojis.

Sam Altman spends his summer advising vote.org in his role as a YC Partner.

Soon after demo day, Sam Altman decides to launch what amounts to a clone knock off of vote.org. Paul Graham tweets about VotePlz at launch calling it the most important thing to happen today, after never mentioning the YC funded vote.org on his twitter all summer as far as I can tell.

Shouldn't YC be as friendly to not-for-profit startup founders as they claim to be to for-profit founders?

I'm all for there being lots of voter-registration organizations. YC should fund lots of startups in this space.

It seems though that the role that YC Partners play as trusted strategic advisors is incompatible with those partners going on to start directly competitive organizations, whatever their tax status might be.

<comment><USER3> I am contributing to both vote.org and voteplz.org, and probably two other get-out-the-vote non-profits. There are different approaches to this problem and I'm not sure which will work best, but unlike many for-profit startups it's non zero-sum--we have a long, long way to go to 100% voter turnout, and all the organizations working on this share the same fundamental goal.

This feels like the most important US presidential election I've ever witnessed, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure we're all involved.

<comment><USER4> Do we really want those that are so half-hearted about the process that they need great efforts to cajole them to actually participating in our elections? How much time and effort do you think someone that has to be given so many "easy buttons" to become part of the process will dedicate to understanding the issues, the candidates, and the possible future outcomes? I don't think many.

I think voting should be open to anyone that wants to put some reasonable effort into being part of the process. For example, maybe you should have to go to your county clerk's office in person to register. Voting should be in person. Yes, for those that are home-bound or have legitimate extenuating circumstances, they should be allowed to vote or register by mail... but if you're otherwise able and not willing to go to some reasonable effort to participate, you likely aren't going to be the model of an "informed voter" either.

The only reason I think politicians and activists go down this road to making it easier to vote is because they want an electorate that doesn't think too much nor care too much. They want a docile electorate more likely to rubber stamp ideas than submit them to scrutiny. This is about undermining the functioning of democratic systems, not expanding them.... or it's just ill considered.

<comment><USER5> There are a wide variety of reasons as to why registering to vote should be as easy as possible, and most of them have nothing to do with convincing people who don't want to vote to vote (I mean, ideally, we should live in a society that automatically registers everyone by default. But we're not quite there yet).

People who work 9-5 jobs that are paid hourly (or people currently in school, and go to school during those hours) literally lose money by taking time off to go to a government building and do these things in person, since government buildings operate 9-5 as well (some even open late/close early, because government).

Currently, the people most-likely to vote are either old (retired, with the free-time available to go do these things at their convenience), or middle-to- upper class salary workers (who won't be penalized for taking time off to go do these things).

While the people least-likely to vote are young people and people who work lower to lower-middle class hourly jobs, who cannot afford to take time off to register/vote. Most states don't even guarantee you paid time off to vote on election days.

If people don't want/care to vote, no amount of simplifying is going to _make_ them do it. But people who want to vote shouldn't have _anything_ standing in their way.

<comment><USER6> _But people who want to vote shouldn 't have anything standing in their way._

I agree in principle, but in practice for the white millennials this site seems aimed at, there's not much _in_ their way. And then there's a whole section of the page trying to convince people _to_ vote in the first place, to vote for the down-ballot, etc.

In that context, sbuttgereit's question seems valid.

<comment><USER5> > for the white millennials this site seems aimed at, there's not much in > their way

I don't know what about our product makes you think that we're specifically targeting white people, but, even if we were, millennials (even ones from populations that are disproportionately of a privileged background) are overwhelmingly either currently in school, or under-employed . "Under- employed," meaning that they tend to work part-time, hourly jobs, rather than being able to secure salaried positions (even for ones with higher degrees).

As I've said before, they literally do not have time--and will, in fact, be put at a financial burden, if they chose to--to take off time to vote. Which is why we have services like "Time off to Vote" ([https://www.voteplz.org/guide/get-time- off/](https://www.voteplz.org/guide/get-time-off/)) to help people know their rights, as well as easy-to-understand information about getting absentee ballots and voting early.

We also have an entire resource for helping people with criminal pasts know their rights ([https://www.voteplz.org/register/#/felony- help/](https://www.voteplz.org/register/#/felony-help/)), which pretty much no one makes straight-forward. If you look at other registration sites, they tend to say something along the lines of, "don't use us if you've ever committed a crime," because they don't feel like putting in the effort to help that demographic. Even the National Voter Registration form uses language that can be misinterpreted as meaning that people who have been to jail automatically lose their rights forever.

Like I said, making it easier for people to vote (and giving them resources to get _informed_ ) is not _making_ people who don't want to vote, vote. It's helping people who want to make a difference get the resources to make a difference.

<comment><USER6> _don 't know what about our product makes you think that we're specifically targeting white people, but, even if we were_

If you were, it would be terrible and racist, considering the much more serious impediments people of racial minorities tend to have to vote. But I wasn't saying that, just that it was very focused on them, presumably because most or all of the people you have writing the copy _are_ white millennials, and probably all men. Try to scrounge up some other people to look at the site.

As for the impediments, again, if you're not lily-white, all those things go double, with more barriers, besides. Meanwhile, I've been a white student and under-employed in a recession while voting religiously, and it was never that hard.

<comment><USER7> > presumably because most or all of the people you have writing the copy _are_ > white millennials, and probably men

Jokes on you--I'm black woman

<comment><USER6> _shrug_

Then, I guess you know who you're aiming the copy at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I haven't seen a persuasive analysis of whether and how one should vote; most analyses I've seen ignore the electoral college and all the issues it brings. In brief:

My vote is statistically extremely unlikely to affect the outcome of the election. This is counter-balanced by the extremely large impact affecting the outcome would have. I'm inclined to believe that the two roughly cancel, so that a (say) one-in-several-million chance of affecting the outcome is worth the effort of voting. But I live in California, where my vote is roughly 100x less likely than the average vote to affect the outcome (FiveThirtyEight has done this analysis, though the precise number fluctuates and has considerable uncertainty).

So then what are the effects of my vote? It nudges the statistics a little. It increases turnout, which probably increases confidence in our democracy. It increases turnout among 18-29 year-olds, probably increasing their political clout and furthering causes they support. Do I agree with them on the whole, or in particular on issues where their political clout is likely to tip the scales? I don't know. Say I vote for Clinton, it also increases her popular vote total. If she wins, it slightly improves her electoral mandate. If she loses, it slightly deprives Trump's mandate. It also increases the chance that Trump wins the election but loses the popular vote--a potentially very unpleasant scenario.

How do I measure and balance these? How is a consequentialist to vote?

<comment><USER9> The presidential race is the least important item on your ballot.

Progressives like me argue that voting for local races and issues, the things that effect you directly, is for more important.

The function of the presidential races is to increase turnout and participation for all that down ballot stuff.

<comment><USER10> I'm a progressive and I totally disagree with your line of reasoning.

The next POTUS will nominate a Supreme Court judge. That is far, far more important than any local issue because Supreme Court decisions have MAJOR impact for the entire country and they supersede any lower-court decisions and invalidate all conflicting laws.

When the Supreme Court says that separating black and white students in public schools is unconstitutional ( _Brown vs. Board of Education, 1954_ ), it affects you directly.

When the Supreme Court says women have a constitutional right to abortion ( _Roe v. Wade, 1973_ ), it affects you directly if you're a woman and/or have had your partner need/want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

When the Supreme Court says corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in elections ( _Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010_ ), it affects you directly.

Sure, local politicians may affect more day-to-day life matters, but in the grand scheme of things, those don't matter too much. I mean, if you think the amount of budget allocated to the local school system is too little, move to another city/state with a better-funded school system. Not super easy to do, but moving to another country however is considerably more difficult.

<comment><USER11> This is among the least important reasons to vote on the POTUS. Most SCOTUS cases are actually far more narrow in scope and impact than the ones you described. Aside from that, in this particular election there is no good reason to favor either major party candidate with respect to SCOTUS, if one's agenda is a progressive one. So the motivation to GOTV for them based on SCOTUS is isn't necessarily there.

<comment><USER12> Trump provided a list of conservative legal figures he might nominate - whether or not Clinton's choices would be ideal, progressives should find them better than Trump's.

To give a concrete example, the current deadlock has stopped Obama's deferred action immigration program, affecting the status of millions of immigrants. It seems likely a Clinton appointee would flip that result, while a Trump appointee would not.

<comment><USER11> On the other hand Hillary seems to be keen on augmenting the government's spying activities, criminal enforcement, and foreign aggression. There is no good reason to think that Clinton's nominees will in aggregate be better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Some information on our supporter lists, such as names, email addresses, and addresses, may be exchanged with named partners and other organizations with principles and/or missions that overlap with those of VotePlz." — "We'll make sure people spam you with political bullshit to the end of time if you're dumb enough to give us your personal info."

Of course, on the signup form, they say "We'll never sell your data or spam you" and then point you to the privacy policy which says that.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the feedback! We've updated the privacy policy to remove this section to reflect that we won't do this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is this really necessary?

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BKGdQ42haF1/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BKGdQ42haF1/)

EDIT: Mirror: [https://i.sli.mg/MsUWXx.jpg](https://i.sli.mg/MsUWXx.jpg)

<comment><USER16> Considering that old people are more likely to vote for Trump or Hillary, yes it is. CNN doesn't even include ages 18-34 on their polls anymore because those people are trying to vote for actual sane 3rd party candidates.

<comment><USER17> If only there were some of those on the ballet...

<comment><USER18> I would love to see Jill in a performance of Swan Lake.

Since I've been following his campaign, I know for sure that Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and apparently Jill Stein is 42 states according to her website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> i _really_ wish that "No Vote" was a valid/acceptable option, and there were ramifications if "No Vote" got the majority support. I just don't buy into the "you are obligated to vote" choir, or see any value in the "vote against somebody else" vote.

<comment><USER20> I kinda feel like that is Gary Johnson... I mean I personally agree with a lot of what he says, but most people consider it a throw away vote. For me it's a vote that says, even though I do think one candidate is less bad than another. I strongly dislike Trump/Clinton. Please come back with better options next year.

Also I'd love it if he would win, but I'm a realist mostly I'm just telling both parties they miss my vote.

<comment><USER21> I'm sympathetic, but as someone who remembers the 2000 election and how it was clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications (war, etc…), I can't support this view (at least not in a state that might matter).

If you don't vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to complain when you don't like what happens. "I didn't vote for him/her", isn't a valid excuse unless you voted against him/her.

I recognize this is a dissapointing and compromised viewpoint, but there are literally lives on the line.

<comment><USER22> I can't do that. I can't vote for someone that I feel is a terrible choice that will have serious ramifications without actually believing in them. I won't send the message that I want a candidate unless I actually want them.

I'm not voting against a candidate, i'm voting for one. And if there is nobody that represents me, i'm not going to vote. I'm not going to show approval for one of the candidates that I don't actually support, and i'm not going to feel like it's "my fault" when one of them wins.

<comment><USER21> Hypothetical: Candidate A is a genuine sociopath and serial killer. Candidate B was indicted for tax-fraud, but got off for BS reasons. Candidate C runs a non-profit and loves kittens, but has no chance in hell of winning.

I don't want to vote for A or B. I want to vote for C. But if by not voting for B, A gets elected, that's partly on me.

This isn't our exact situation, but if you genuinely believe one plausible candidate is better than the other (even if still bad) and you vote 3rd party, then you're wasting your vote.

Whether Gary Johnson gets 5% or 12% of the vote isn't going to fix the two party system. If you want to do that, you need to start at the local and state levels. Just running a candidate for president every four years is for publicity and messaging, not because you're ever going to win.

<comment><USER22> I don't see it that way. It's not on me that 5X% of the people who voted voted for the serial killer. That's on them. If that is who the population wants, then that is what they will get.

My vote is the voice I get in democracy. I'm not going to use it to vote in someone I don't agree with on most issues, just because the other guy is worse. Me withholding that voice (or using it to vote for someone I know won't win, but who i genuinely believe in) is the way that I can be heard. It's my way of telling future politicians that if they support X (or something close to X) that they can get a portion of those who voted for C last election.

It's my way of sending a message that the next candidate shouldn't be a serial killer AND shouldn't be involved in tax fraud. It's my call for someone who better represents me and my beliefs.

<comment><USER21> As I said earlier, in 2000 people voted for Nader and its a pretty direct path to a trillion dollar war that cost thousands of American lives, cost hundreds of thousands of non-American lives, and led semi-directly to ISIS.

I don't blame Nader voters, because they didn't realize what could happen. Voters in 2016 have no such excuse.

<comment> lhc- Why can't we blame the democratic candidate, who was so unappealing to progressive voters that they preferred Nader? I would suggest it is the fault of that candidate (and his party) that they lost the election. No one is entitled to anyone else's votes, regardless of how bad the competition is. Voters have agency, and have no compulsion to vote for one specific candidate to avoid another evil one (that specific candidate still must earn those votes).

<comment><USER23> Yep. It's a myth that Nader lost Gore the election. In Florida, 10x as many registered Democrats voted for _Bush_ as voted for Nader.

The main argument for voting _for_ a guaranteed-to-lose third-party candidate is that it gives the parties a clear, quantitative signal about how many voters their base-unfriendly policies are losing them.

And also the down-ticket races, of course, though many of them are so gerrymandered here that your votes don't matter in them, either.

<comment><USER21> > Yep. It's a myth that Nader lost Gore the election. In Florida, 10x as many > registered Democrats voted for Bush as voted for Nader.

This isn't a counter-argument. Yes, there are innumerable ways Gore could have gotten the handful of votes needed to push him over the top in Florida.

But it's difficult to argue that, if Nader voters voted for their second choice instead, Gore wouldn't have gotten enough votes to win. To argue otherwise is to argue that a majority of Nader voters would have picked Bush as a second pick, and that's difficult to imagine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> NB: VotePlz is partially funded by YC president Sam Altman, although I am not sure if it is a part of YC (see interview w/ cofounders + Altman: [https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/voteplz-silicon- valley-...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/voteplz-silicon-valley- millennial-voters))

<comment><USER25> Who is funding VotePlz

<comment><USER26> And how do they plan on earning money?

<comment><USER27> Not everything is about earning money. Sometimes it's (hopefully) about empowering more direct democracy.

<comment><USER25> You are too idealistic.

Power and influence is ultimately traded as a commodity with the use of money. Other methods are not generalizable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Freedom is not a done deal. Not in America, not anywhere.

The founders did not give us freedom. They gave us a _process_ for slowing the inevitable erosion of freedom.

This is that process.

There's a lot of talk here about whether higher turnout is a worthy goal, if that means expending energy to overcome the apathy, indifference, or jadedness of people who are thus unlikely to be astute, well-informed, or community- minded.

I say that high turnout is a good in its own right. Turnout itself—for whatever result—is an antiseptic to corruption. Low turnout is a bellwether for how much people in power can get away with. Local beat reporters are leaving journalism as the newspapers fold. Who's minding the shop? We are.

It's not just about results, it's about culture. If we are indifferent to the indifference of others, we pass a weaker democracy to the next generation.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is it wrong that I instantly think less of a website when I see gratuitous, unnecessary emoji?

<comment><USER24> Per the BuzzFeed interview, the website is explicitly targeting millennials.

<comment><USER29> As a millennial, I find it childish and saccharine. Makes the site look unprofessional, like it's trying to be "hip like you youngsters!"

<comment><USER30> From one millennial to another: you're in the minority. This type of shit works on our peers. (Well maybe not _our_ peers, but you know what I'm saying.) Most people our age get their news from Facebook and BuzzFeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Voting should be the single required act to trigger your Universal Basic Income for the year.

<comment><USER31> and what if there are no candidates you feel good about voting for?

<comment><USER32> Really wish the definition of democracy included by default the right to vote that you object strongly enough to significant options not to vote for any of them.

<comment><USER33> > Really wish the definition of democracy included by default the right to > vote that you object strongly enough to significant options not to vote for > any of them.

It does. Even with places with mandatory voting, you usually are only required to turn in a ballot paper, it can still not actually vote for any of the options.

Of course, that's just ceding your involvement in the choice (as it should be -- you are, in effect, voting no preference between the available options.)

<comment><USER31> there's a very large difference between "no preference" and "I find all the options unacceptable".

<comment><USER33> "I find all the options _equally_ unacceptable" is exactly the same as "No preference".

Usual election systems already support the case where you find the options _unequally_ unacceptable.

<comment><USER31> "equally unacceptable" is not what "no preference" means. i'm astonished you're trying to argue these are equivalent.

"differently unacceptable" is also a terrible situation though! this is the entire point of my argument. I may find some candidates more bad than others. being forced to vote for less bad is still being disenfranchised to a significant extent.

<comment><USER33> No, having the opportunity to vote for less bad is being enfranchised. The franchise is an entitlement for to have an option you like provided for you by someone else, not is it an entitlement to have your most preferred option be successful through the filtering that happens in the political process you are entitled to participate in before the stage of a general election ballot is reached.

FPTP is a bad system of aggregating preferences where there are more than two options in principle, and produces bad effects in the filtering (and voting) process because people adjust for the bad way that it aggregates preferences. And there are lots of sensible, obvious, and proven ways to make that better. But none of them guarantee you a situation where you aren't forced either to not vote it to vote for a less-bad alternative (though ranked ballots methods move some of the filtering process into the general election, down-ballot votes are still votes.)

<comment><USER31> the voting franchise is a fundamental right of citizens in a democracy. the fact that you're referring to it as an entitlement is misinformed, and in fact, quite warped and reveals a deep misunderstanding of our form of government.

the state we find ourselves in this year is abundant evidence of the terrible malfunctioning of the American political process. the system we have in place now struggles to reach even the basic requirements of legitimacy and consent of the governed.

what does popular sovereignty mean anyway if large majorities of the populous are very very very unhappy with their government?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I don't see any indication as to which jurisdiction(s)/election(s) this pertains to. Is it USA-only? USA-federal-election-only?

These may be "stupid" questions, and the answers may be buried somewhere, but I'd imagine it would make sense to have this information on the home page.

<comment><USER7> It is currently US only! But registration is good for any US election (state/local/federal).

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I put in my address, which resulted in a popup saying "Uh oh! Looks like something went wrong with our codez..."

The rotating status icon beneath the address box proceeded to change the dimensions of the page, making an interesting cyclic pattern of lengthening and shortening my scroll bars.

Interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actively deploying a fix!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I would like Sam Altman to publicly make a statement about his attendance at the Bilderberg Conference.

Was the USA presidential election discussed at this conference, in any discussions of which he was a part?

<comment><USER37> Bilderberg participants agree not to publicly discuss the content of the meetings.

<comment><USER36> I didn't ask for that... besides, he is answering other questions in this thread and can address the question however he wants.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What a terribly designed website. I opened it with an ad blocker running, and it's continuously redrawing itself, and the validation error boxes are displayed with {{vm.errors.blahblah}} in them. I can understand things not working right if some resources don't get loaded, but this is an incredibly ungraceful way to fail.

<comment><USER38> On the other hand, the site managed to tell me in a sensible way to enable Javascript (blocked with Noscript), instead of failing incomprehensibly like most websites do. So this is one good point for them, I'd say!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Neither voteplz or vote.org show me as registered, but ocvote.com does. Seems like the main thing these sites are designed to do doesn't work, unless they are actually designed to collect and sell emails...

</comment><comment><USER40> Odd, I'm not sure if this is intentional but after the "check if you are registered" step it wants me to register, despite the fact that my registration is active (I can look it up for NC and I've voted in 2 primaries in the last 6 months without moving). This is either a mistake or an odd choice when people are already registered.

I wanted to see what the process looked like so I could share it on my FB because I think its a great tool (even if there are others like it).

</comment><comment><USER41> Why would we want more people voting, especially if they couldn't previously be bothered to absent a significant amount of prodding?

<comment><USER5> Making it simpler for people to vote isn't prodding. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

<comment><USER41> You can create a propaganda campaign about how delightful voting is and all the cool kids are doing it, here's some dank memes, and by the way if you don't you're letting your country down. Like this one.

[https://www.voteplz.org/why/](https://www.voteplz.org/why/)

My first question remains. Why is more people voting a good thing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> No mention of what city/state/country it is even applicable to. A star is pretty generic to think that means USA by itself.

<comment><USER27> Looks like it's a county-by-county lookup function, crossed with state voting laws. We're building something county-by-county too - difficult locality matching issues.

<comment><USER43> Note that in some places, county isn't very useful for anything voting- related, and completely useless for down-ballot. Here in NYC, each county contains dozens upon dozens of polling places. And then each of the US House, state senate, state representatives, and city council have oodles of their own non-matching districts that don't match 1-1 with polling places either.

Getting any useful information about down-ballot races when there are thousands of separate races in a single media market is essentially impossible. And that goes doubly for the primaries, which are really the only races that make a difference here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Observation: this site incorrectly identified me as not registered to vote. I verified my status on my county website.

<comment><USER5> Hey there! Could you send more deets to firstname.lastname@example.com ?

There are a number of reason why this could have failed on our end that users have run into in the past: anything from maybe entering your name incorrectly (people who type in "Alex" instead of "Alexander"), using the wrong address (if you recently moved, but registered at an old address), all the way to our DB being not quite up-to-date due to you having registered very recently.

Not saying its impossible for it to have been an "us" problem, but there are a lot of moving parts at play. There's also no real downside to registering twice (other than the loss of a couple minutes). Better to be safe than sorry

<comment><USER44> I sent an email as requested.

<comment><USER5> Woop!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> How does the registration work with weird state requirements? For instance, Indiana requires a "wet" signature, unless through the specially-exempted indianavoters.in.gov form.

I tried to go through both voteplz.org and vote.org to see if it would end up directing me to indianavoters.in.gov, but:

When I entered my address, VotePlz told me "Uh oh! Looks like something went wrong with our codez." (in a pop-up over a message telling me that it wasn't a valid residential address).

When I hit "continue" after entering my basic information, vote.org told me "The change you wanted was rejected. Maybe you tried to change something you didn't have access to."

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah! Sorry about the errors, we're actively fixing them and scaling up.

We mail you a pre-filled and pre-addressed registration form with return postage already on it. All you have to do is sign the form and drop it back into the mail to get registered.

When we first started, our initial goal was to actually only focus on states that require things like wet signatures because we didn't see too many options that made it dead simple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Even if you say "plz", I'm not voting. Not because voting isn't easy enough but because there's not a candidate that I can vote for.

</comment><comment><USER47> My address came into existence ~2 years ago. I'm still having trouble with address lookups validating my address as valid, including in this case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's unfortunately a result of the proprietary database we had to license :-/.

We started out by writing scrapers to do the checks to avoid these sorts of problems, but they ended up being way more trouble than they were worth.

Did you know that New Jersey's voter registration portal has business hours and that California does voter registration on a per-county basis? That means the best case scenario is writing and maintaining 58 individual scrapers just for California, if you don't count the counties where you can only check by calling in.

Sorry we couldn't come up with a better solution to fit your needs :-(.

<comment><USER27> it's a tough problem. we're using the county-by-district database at US Census for our localization. [https://www.census.gov/geo/maps- data/data/kml/kml_couwithinc...](https://www.census.gov/geo/maps- data/data/kml/kml_couwithincd.html) but we're not doing specific legal requirements matching, which is wayyy tougher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> This is probably a risky question to ask here, but let me ask it anyway: looks like most/all YC partners are rallying behind a particular candidate. Would this VotePlz effort try to help their favorite candidate in an indirect way? On the face of it, it doesn't seem like, but I would be skeptical given how partisan Paul Graham's political tweets had been.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm kinda shocked that a few dudes got funded money for this site. I guess having a dick means that other people with dicks will just write a check without any actual proof of doing good work. Can we ban SV from politics?

</comment><comment><USER50> This site is unusable on mobile for me (I'm on chrome/android) because the birthdate selector requires me to wind the calendar selector to 30+ years month-by-month (so 360+ swipes to register my birthdate). Anyone else run into this?

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm out of the country and will still be out of the country on November 8th. I'd like to fill out an absentee ballot for Maine. Is voteplz able to mail all the requisite forms to me internationally?

</comment><comment><USER52> is the source code for this (and the other voting non-profits) opensource ? I ask because this could be deployed in some form to mobilize the world's largest democratic exercise in India.

The last general elections in India had more people voting than the last 6 US presidential elections _combined_ (which included some interesting modes including elephants, camels and canoe).

However, the urban voter turnout is still low. I wonder if something like this can be used to mobilize them,

</comment><comment><USER49> The dudes here also steal the language of TurboVote. I guess the capitalists at YC get to steal from women bc SV are our gods.

</comment><comment><USER53> Is it so difficult to vote in the US?

<comment><USER41> No, it's not. You register to vote a bit before the election. You show up to your local precinct, or request a mail-in ballot. You _might_ have to show the same ID you're required to have for any other institution interaction, depending on your state. Done.

You're able to register to vote whenever you change the address on your state ID or car registration. In many states you can register at the polling station on voting day. You usually also get mailers prompting you to vote, volunteers asking you in person, etc.

<comment><USER54> This isn't the whole picture. In some states, there's a proof of citizenship requirement in order to register to vote, and the most common form of photo ID (driver's license) is not sufficient for that purpose in most cases, because non-citizens can also hold it.

Problem is, for many people, they don't actually have any documentation to that effect. The most typical documents are passports and birth certificates. The former aren't free, and are otherwise only really useful when travelling in other countries, so there's little incentive to have one. The latter are often not available on hand, and you have to go to a completely different place (from where you register) to obtain yours; worse yet if you were born in a different state. It's usually not free, either.

[http://www.demos.org/publication/how-do-proof-citizenship- la...](http://www.demos.org/publication/how-do-proof-citizenship-laws-block- legitimate-voters)

<comment><USER41> These "many people" must not be able to sustain employment either, since proof of eligibility to work (citizenship, or a visa that allows employment but wouldn't allow voting) is a requirement for any job.

Somehow, outrage over this situation only surfaces when it's time to send as much of a low-agency population as possible to the polls.

<comment><USER54> Proof of eligibility to work is one's Social Security card, normally. You don't need a birth certificate for that. Now, if you want to make the Social Security card a valid ID for the purposes of voting...

Somehow, the outrage about voter identity fraud - which empirically is so low that reported cases are in double digits across the entire country - is when it's election time, and politicians of a certain bent suddenly find out that poor and non-white people, for some mysterious reason, don't really support to cut top income bracket taxes even further.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> well it's certainly a bit more enticing than efforts such as "Rock the Vote" or "Vote or Die"</comment>


A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/l28times.html?_r=1 <comment><USER2> NYT.com Pricing Page: [http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp5558.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp5558.html)

NYT Home Delivery: <https://www.nytimesathome.com/>

WSJ.com Pricing Page: <https://order.wsj.com/sub/f3>

Both of them suck because it's not easy to figure out how much you'll actually pay annually. They purposely bury the actual subscription cost behind "details" hover-bubbles, and only explicitly show you limited-time rates which are far cheaper than what you'll actually pay in the long run. Basically, it's a signal that they're afraid to tell customers how much they actually cost.

      WSJ
                    Year 1   Year 2   Diff

      Online        $103.48  $155.48   50%
      Print         $119.08  $363.48  205%
      Online/Print  $139.88  $441.48  215%
      iPad App      $207.48  $207.48    0%

      DUAL-PLANS REQUIRED:

      Online/iPad   $310.96  $362.96   17%
      Print/iPad    $326.56  $570.96   75%
      Onl/Pri/iPad  $347.36  $648.96   86%

      </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

      NYT
                    Year 1   Year 2   Diff

      Online/Mobile $183.96  $195.00    6%
      Online/Tablet $243.96  $260.00    7%
      Online/All    $423.96  $455.00    7%

      10001 (NYC, NY):

      Print (S-Sun) $289.80  $327.60   13%
      Print (M-Fri) $285.20  $322.40   13%
      Print (F-Sun) $349.60  $395.20   13%
      Print (7 day) $538.20  $608.40   13%

      90120 (LA, CA):

      Print (Sun)   $345.00  $390.00   13%
      Print (M-Fri) $340.40  $384.80   13%
      Print (F-Sun) $478.40  $540.80   13%
      Print (7 day) $680.80  $769.60   13%

With the exception of the WSJ iPad App, everything increases rates in year 2. The WSJ increases them dramatically.

The NYT print subscription includes free online/smartphone/tablet access (All Digital Access). It's actually cheaper to subscribe to some Print plans to gain All Digital Access, than it is to just go digital!

      Online/All    $423.96  $455.00
      Print (S-Sun) $289.80  $327.60   NYC
      Print (M-Fri) $285.20  $322.40   NYC
      Print (F-Sun) $349.60  $395.20   NYC
      Print (Sun)   $345.00  $390.00   LA
      Print (M-Fri) $340.40  $384.80   LA

I guess this means it's cheaper to provide online, smartphone, iPad access, AND physical home delivery, than it is to omit delivery. ;)</comment>


FAMU FSU College of Engineering Potential Split Causes Racial Debate - <AUTHOR> http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/senate-approves-funding-to-split-famu-fsu-engineering-school/2173408

<comment><USER2> If you want to justify that headline, maybe you should have linked to an article that mentioned some kind of racial debate?</comment>


How to Win at Coin Flipping - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wolfram.com/2010/11/30/how-to-win-at-coin-flipping/

<comment><USER3> I had to work out a sample game the long way to understand the strategy for a 3-sequence game, maybe others will find it helpful:

Suppose some games where the players choose a sequence of 3 and the game goes up to 4 tosses max. For any sequence of 3 there are going to be 4 possible ways to win. Let's suppose player one chose THT, the ways of winning are:

HTHT - game ends after 4 tosses TTHT - game ends after 4 tosses THTH - <USER2> ends after 3 tosses THTT - game ends after 3 tosses

Now, as player two, you know that any combination you chose will also have 4 ways of winning, so in order to beat player one you need to rob them of one of their ways of winning by picking a sequence that appears before their winning sequence.

You have no options in the latter two cases, player one wins after only 3 tosses, but you can beat them in the first two cases. Both HTH and TTH appear before THT, but in the third case THT appears before HTH. So HTH won't work, you both take one of each other's winning conditions leaving you both with 4. But there are no cases where TTH appears after THT, so you have 4 ways of winning while player one only has 3.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've never seen this comprehensive an exposition of intransitive coin games; that's pretty cool. But I must admit some surprise at the lack of Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern references (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjOqaD5tWB0>).</comment>


Ask HN: How to manage remote teams better? - <AUTHOR>

Our team is split between CA & India. We've a daily scrum to discuss what was done the day before and things to do on that day. All of us are on our private IRC channel to ensure everyone's on the same page.
Still, quite a few things even though non-major (which are important to make the product polished) get lost due to distance and time zone differences.
Can you share some of the things you learnt while managing remote teams? <comment><USER2> I would say the single most important rule that we ever put in place for our team which is completly distributed is that everything goes in the ticket system. No matter how small if it requires work, it goes into the ticket system. This ensures that there is a ticket out there that is being tracked, the project cannot be considered complete until all tickets are either dealt with or backlogged. Having a process built around a ticket system is instrumental to a process where things don't fall off the radar. A good deal of the ticket systems like JIRA integrate with the major IDE's, and most source control repositories can be configured to require a commit note. Many of the plugins integrate with source control to update the ticket at the same time you commit. Further some will even branch and merge just by clicking on a ticket and setting it's state to open. The point being with a little modeling of your process you can implement defect and feature tracking in a way that works with the natural flow of development. Doing so will patch a lot of the areas where information is leaking and not being captured.

</comment><comment><USER3> My team has people on East Coast, West Coast, Asia and Europe.

The simple stuff:

* As kls said, everything goes into a ticket * virtual water cooler (yammer) to allow collab with other teams * web-based code review tools * when ever possible IM or phone is preferred method of communication

The hard stuff:

Overcome cultural differences regarding office politics, work ethic etc for workers outside of the USA. If you can get a good team leader on the other side of the pond who really "get's it", pay that person well. S/he will have more leverage with people and be able to get the message across better.

We've also gone against the norm and really kept high expectations for our "off shore" folks and given then big responsibilities. We want them to become great designers and coders and be able to work independent.

</comment><comment><USER4> If things are getting lost then:

1\. During scrum take notes for everyone while they are speaking.

2\. End of the call send out an email to all with Minutes of meeting(which could just be what you noted above or shorter version).

3\. Next day/scrum start from the last meeting's note and see if pending issues were worked on or missed(if missed highlight them right away).

4\. Use a tool like JIRA/Confluence/Trello or XPlanner to organise teams/tasks/stories and assign tickets for every outstanding issue/task(Do not hesitate even if it is a 2 minute task).

5\. Circulate weekly progress to everyone so that everyone knows where the team stands.Tool like xplanner are very good in providing charts/graphs from the data you enter everyday.

Good luck !

<comment><AUTHOR> Sending minutes and discussing it next day is a great idea. Thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> -Establish schedules and stick to them. -Be super positive and encouraging. -Let them know you value them -Give strong financial incentives. -Don't make assumptions about what they know or don't know. -Understand the time and culture. -It's ultimately a lot more time and work than you think

</comment><comment><USER6> Does your team work the same hours? ..I have read some successful remote teams have everyone working the same 9-5</comment>


Hackers root Google's Nest thermostat in 15 seconds - <AUTHOR> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2359748/hackers-root-googles-nest-thermostat-in-15-seconds

<comment><USER2> Physical access implies root access. I'm glad Buentello put this together, but it's not a magical elite "hack" \- it's a feature for fiddlers and developers who want actual control of their devices.

It just happens to be a device with a motion sensor and a whole load of other stuff attached, that you'd rather not anyone have a backdoor into.</comment>


Will Regulations Kill The Sharing Economy? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/04/will-regulations-kill-the-sharing-economy/ <comment><USER2> So are we to conclude that piles of regulations end up helping the incumbent? That regulation is just a form of mercantilism, or some other discredited economic theory?

A few months ago, I heard a story about Kosher food production on NPR ([http://www.wbur.org/npr/150300040/why-matzo-makers-love- regu...](http://www.wbur.org/npr/150300040/why-matzo-makers-love-regulation)). The upshot was that Kosher food producers love the strict regulation - complying with the elaborate Kosher rules makes a large barrier to entry into the market.

This viewpoint may actually solve the apparent contradiction of large companies decrying regulation, and giving money to candidates who want to "get rid of red tape", yet actually lobby those same candidates pretty hard to enact more and more regulation.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you look for in a bank/credit union? - james-anthony <comment><AUTHOR> Personal or business?

With regards to personal, for starters look at: \- fee schedule \- balance requirements, including penalties for balances that do not meet those requirements \- online access/services/security

Then maybe you might be interested in the services they provide (debit, credit card and how much interest they charge, auto loan, mortgage, etc.)</comment>


Distributed Shareholders Meeting Via Blockchain In Twenty Lines Of Code - <AUTHOR> http://chepurnoy.org/blog/2014/07/shareholders-meeting-via-blockchain-in-20-lines-of-code/

<comment><USER2> Really great, this will change the way stakeholders reach actionable agreement around a store of economic value like a decentralized asset, in both a public and secure way. Great work!

</comment><comment><USER3> Great article! This will have a huge effect! I can't wait to see the first buesinesses which take advantage of that awesome feature! Thanks again for the article!

<comment><AUTHOR> Some businesses are already planning to use the feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Amazing.

So will shareholders have 1 vote each, vote by number of shares or be given votes by the amount of Nxt they own?

</comment><comment><USER5> Thanks for a very enlightening article. This type of thinking will change the way companies are run.

</comment><comment><USER6> Awesome!</comment>


China's CCTV surveillance network took just 7 minutes to capture BBC reporter - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/13/china-cctv-bbc-reporter/ <comment><AUTHOR> Scary: Facebook probably has even more facial recognition power, and data, than the Chinese government.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I get my degree or not? - <AUTHOR> Hello hackers!
This is almost like a follow-up to this thread http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1438489, but my questions are not quite the same, neither are my goals.
I'm 21 years old and live in Norway. For all my life I've loved computers, and everything else with ICs in it. I learned BASIC programming at the age of 10 by editing games and finding out what happened if I did this or that.
The last years I've had two years off from school, working a crappy job and getting drunk, while reading tons of computer/programming/security/electronics/math-books.
Last fall I went back to school to get a bachelor in informatics. I get straight "A"s, as I already know ten times more about python, C, linked lists, self balancing trees and overflows than the rest of my class. The only thing I need to work with is maths. All while working 50%-110% to be able to afford all my projects, my appartment and steaks on weekends.
Five or six years ago I got a new dream; I want to move to Silicon Valley and work on startups, where my skill and creativity can be put to good use.
Had I not had a girlfriend, (two cats) and my loving parents I'd have been enjoying California's hot sun right now.
Lately I've become tired of working on boring (read: easy) assignments, that takes me a fifth of the time the rest of my class uses, and I still get the highest grades. Because I don't really need to work on things I sometimes forget that I have assignments to do, and that resulted in me only having one of the three exams I was supposed to this spring, because I missed two hand-ins.
There is not (at all) many IT-companies in my area, and for me to get a decent job, I'd have to move somewhere else. And that's what I want to do right now.
But then I'd have to quit my education. So I was wondering what you guys think about that? Money is not an issue, as long as I can get money for programming I don't care how much. Is it possible to later land a better job, without a degree? Will I be as attractive as the rest of my class in five years, if I work my ass off in crappy jobs, only to build a CV?
Really it's HN's fault that I got this idea, all the talk about how useless a degree in CS is didn't help my motivation to work on crap assignments.
And to get back to my dream, would moving to Silicon Valley make things easier? Plane-tickets are cheap, I'm ready, I can start looking for work right now.
But then again, will I be better off in five (or ten) years from now if I drop out of university and run off chasing the American Dream than if I stay in cold and snowy Norway?
(Did I mention that I live in the north of Norway?:/ )
All answers are greatly appreciated! <comment><USER2> "Because I don't really need to work on things I sometimes forget that I have assignments to do, and that resulted in me only having one of the three exams I was supposed to this spring, because I missed two hand-ins."

Danger!

I got some great advice from a high school teacher once, when I was in a similar situation (questioning the usefulness of the curriculum): You only get to say it's substandard once you ace it. Any time before then, or forever if you drop out, your opinion means nothing. He was completely right.

My advice: Stop screwing around thinking all this is beneath you. If it really is, then you should be scoring ridiculously high grades, not missing entire exams. If you're understimulated, ask for higher-level work (masters level?). I think if you turn up in the USA (assuming they let you in) and say you quit because it wasn't any good, they'll assume you're a dilettante and/or lazy.

You don't realize it, but you're in an advantageous situation. You've got time, which is more valuable than most things. You can ace your degree while doing extra to demonstrate that you aren't just one of the crowd. What you choose to do in addition to the course is up to you: higher level schoolwork, freelancing, your own software, whatever. Then when you're done you'll have accomplishments to show, as well as the improved self-discipline that comes from doing something that doesn't fascinate you.

Put your ass in the chair and turn yourself into something outstanding.

<comment><USER3> I can't stress this point enough. I know a lot of people here on HN probably felt the same way while they were in college. In my experience, college is what you make of it. I didn't feel challenged, so I took graduate level classes. When that still wasn't cutting it, I started freelancing and helped a friend start a company.

Also, if you have such ample free time, do something cool with it. Make a start-up instead of working for one. Once you're out in the "real world", it will become much harder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A degree makes it easier to get a tech. job, at some point you will care about how much you earn and having a degree will affect that. Getting a degree later in life will be much harder, I know from friends who later decided they wanted one.

There is really no rush, you should realise you'll be working for the next 45ish years, so a year or two here or there doesn't make much of a difference.

Part of getting a degree is showing that you can learn the stuff that your not so good at, like the Math. Your career won't just be programming, in fact you may only spend 5-10 years doing that before moving into management or starting a company which are different skills altogether.

Mark Zuckerburg and Bill Gates quit their degrees because there was opportunity cost around the businesses they had created. If they had failed in their businesses they most like would have finished their degrees.

<comment><USER5> I second that. You can have a successful tech career without a degree, I have a close friend doing it now, but not having one will get you instantly excluded from many big organizations.

Also, even organizations that will happily hire programmers without a degree may balk at letting them become managers or even more senior level engineers. Even if you think right now you will never want to be a manager, it is probably a good thing to keep open. You may very well change your mind later.

If the problem with college is boredom, then perhaps I can suggest two answers which are not mutually exclusive so you can do both:

Work with your University to substitute something else for the classes you think won't teach you anything. I know it it is an institution by institution question, but my undergrad college was very accommodating at letting me substitute upper division classes for lower division ones when I balked at taking things like "intro to programming".

Take the extra time you have from finishing the homework so fast to work on other productive things. Technical certifications come to mind. I know many people mock them, but they really do open doors when you have to navigate HR departments or hiring managers that have MBAs and no technical skills. Open source software is nanother great one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If your degree in CS is too easy and feels useless study something difficult.

If money up front is not an issue you want a university degree. Even if considered as nothing more than a meaningless credential, university degrees pay off over time. More now than ever.

But it needn't be a mere piece of paper. If your classes are teaching you things you already know _take different classes_.

When you've studied physics up to field theory, biology through physiology and genetics, know how to build an amplifier from a tableful of chips, understand enough statistics to meaningfully criticize a published article in sociology or epidemiology, know how to use Photoshop to duplicate your favorite fancy website from scratch, understand music theory, have a grasp of linguistics and know some basic accounting come back and ask us what to do next. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't, my university won't let me take harder courses. I've taken the hardest courses I can. And I've talked with the councilors, and they tell me to just wait till next semester - "that's when the real fun starts" - but I don't think so.

<comment><USER7> One trick I used at university was if there was a course I wanted to sit in on, I would just show up, sit in the back and listen.

Most classes are so big you can slip in there under the radar.

Dont wait or let some professor tell you can't take a course.

Get the reading material, do the assignments, and learn what you want.

<comment><USER8> You can also sometimes do follow up courses.

My degree was in Maths/Comp-Sci, and as a result, I didn't have some of the courses I wanted open to me on CS due to clashes with compulsory Maths modules for some lectures. Me and a friend ended up sitting at the back of the 50% we could attend (on Networking), and doing a bit of work. After an interview with the prof we were allowed onto the subsequent modules that required the course, despite having never sat the exam...in his words, "It's your degree if you fail it.."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To be honest, I'm not even going to read this beyond the title. The answer to your question is yes. You are 21, and there is plenty of time. University isn't 100% about _what_ you learn, but rather _how_ you learn it and _who_ you learn it with. Finishing a degree also teaches commitment and endurance -- two things which are critical to making a startup successful.

Successful startups are few and far between, and you may need a fall back plan. Getting a CS related job without a degree, at least here in the States, is very difficult. Do yourself a favor; finish what you started.

You mention being bored and tired of _easy_ assignments. What's stopping you from building a startup while you're in school? You could probably kick out a minimum viable product with all that free time.

</comment><comment><USER10> Enjoy Norway as much as you can to get a good degree paid by your oil. Really, you should definitely get a degree because it is opening way more doors than what you can imagine. If you are so good, it means you also have time on the side to develop your ideas/projects. Enjoy it. Also, the best companies can hire the best people, if you have to compete against someone as good as you but he/she has a PhD, sorry to tell you, they will not pick you. Google is mainly hiring PhDs for example.

You are lucky to be able to get an education, lucky to be able to get it while having time and money to develop things on the side, lucky to build yourself a good network at the same time, lucky to do have all the doors open in front of you. Enjoy it now.

I created a company while getting my Master degree, then got a PhD and created a company afterwards. The network I was able to build within an insane number of companies while getting my PhD is so good that I can work for a lot of money 2 months in a year and develop my products the next 10 months without the need to worry about being ramen profitable too fast. I can do the right thing and companies are now ready to pay even more.

A degree is way more than a piece of paper or a line in your CV if you use all what is given to you. It will be an asset worth way more than money when you will try to get a job or creating your company.

Note for US citizens, in Norway education is not only free but you are paid to study.

</comment><comment><USER11> Having a degree can make it easier to get a visa to work in the US, to governments credentials count, not real ability.

Trying to do the degree you're doing is dangerous, as you've noted (although it does allow you to maintain your lifestyle and keep current in real software development). Is there any possibility that you can change to another major or school where you can get a real CS degree?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd have to move to get another option.

I haven't done any real research into the whole visa-business, but I really should do that soon;) Is it not true that it's easier to get a visa if you already have a company that has agreed to let you work with them?

<comment><USER12> Get a degree. I've been in this situation (from the US to Canada), and having a degree helps. It's easy to have a company say they want you to work for them. The thing is, visa's aren't just approved because a company says they need you. They also need to demonstrate why they need "you" in particular, and why someone local can't help them. Why can't they hire an American, or a Canadian? Why are they hiring a foreigner? These are questions that need to be addressed. Having a degree goes toward helping demonstrate that.

To put it another way, I've never seen education shut doors for me. It has, however, given my opportunities I wouldn't have had otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Get the degree.

I dropped out because it was boring me, now I regret it.

1\. I'm labelled a "dropout". That's a good thing if you manage to make a success of yourself, otherwise it might as well say "loser".

2\. People consider me less serious than if I had a degree. I've actually been in conversations with people where, despite my 6 years of commercial experience and numerous successful projects, they've discounted my views over the newbie programmer, because he's just finished a computing degree (computing, not even CS). This is when dealing with people who have barely any computer skills - a degree makes sense to them, they never see the code I write or understand how long it takes me to write. (Note: I'm not very outspoken and not much of a leader).

3\. I'd get more chances/earn more money. My friend, who is a less experienced coder than me, can get job interviews that I cannot and earns more money than me (even though we have the same job). His degree is in philosophy.

<comment><USER14> i wish i could upvote this a million times. People need a quick way of judging things and your degree is generally the first barrier. This is not optimal but it's how the world works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Get your degree! - In the US, no masters degree means no job period. Unless of course you can demonstrate your capability with top level involvement in an impressive open source project, and massive presence in the social networking sphere etc, then your hopes of coming here and diving into a cool organization are unlikely.

The competition is tough, Not to mention the immigration laws.. The US is not making foreign visa holders very welcome right now.. Unemployment is very high!

Besides the american dream is getting old, and from a startups perspective can be a somewhat overrated experience, unless your aiming to get fat, acquire diabetes, high blood pressure etc with very expensive medical cover.

Besides your young, drink beer, write cool open source software, contribute to a linux distro, learn robotics and electronics, go to conferences and perhaps meet people who can be mentors and colleagues. Learn to write, and do public speaking! Hell the world is your oyster, the US is not the only place with great beaches - try Cape Town, South Africa, after the world cup. With your skills you can be a world citizen!

And btw - exercise like your life depended on it!

</comment><comment><USER16> If you only want to be a programmer, drop out. Anyone can learn how to program.

The unfortunate thing is that so many people believe that. As a result there is a saturation of poor programmers and weeding through the mess of poor programmers vs good/smart/intelligent/imaginative programmers is a pain in the ass.

Most people (not all) who hire, will weed out programmers who apply without a CS degree.

I am not saying a CS degree is better than 10 years experience.

I am saying you will have to deal with humans just like yourself who have their own perceptions and their own beliefs about what is or is not required to be hired.

So when you apply for that job and you don't have a CS degree or 10 years experience what do you have?

You have nothing to prove that you are the genius that you are.

Join an open source project if you are that eager to get your hands dirty.

</comment><comment><USER17> Mind that it is very hard to move to the US and start a company there if you are not a US citizen.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know that, but I don't want to start a company, just get a job, any IT- related job.

<comment><USER18> If you are planning to look for a job rather than start a company, you _really_ should get your degree.

If your classes are not stimulating you enough, perhaps you could try training for programming competitions (TopCoder, Google Code Jam, ACM ICPC). Doing well on those could be a good differentiator on a resume.

<comment><USER19> Or he could pick up short coding jobs online (eg vworker) and start to build a portfolio of successfully applying his coding skills - there's a lot more to being a good prospect for an employer than being a killer coder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you're taking classes that you already have mastered, you're doing yourself a disservice. You're not getting educated, you're getting a degree. Perhaps you should be taking different classes. Math classes. CS classes that focus more on theory.

</comment><comment><USER21> I am from a very cold northern area filled with Norwegians, in the USA. From a cultural and seasonal affective disorder point of view, I do think it is a good thing to get out of that sort of environment if you want to be a software entrepreneur.

If I were you I would try to figure out how to go to school in the USA. It's expensive but I think worth it. You would kill two birds with one stone. Plus, I think it's better to start out in school, rather than move to a new place and jump into a job. You meet a lot of friends, learn interesting things, and have fun. I have worked on a visa in a foreign country, and it is a lonely and kind of boring existence.

</comment><comment><USER22> Make a cool hobby / startup website thingy in your free time. You'll get the degree, and Silicon Valley will still be there when you graduate, and you will be more employable (and immigratable) due to your qualifications and experience.

</comment><comment><USER23> I would recommend switching your major to math. You will likely get a lot more out of it and it will be more or less of equal value to a CS degree, especially considering your current knowledge of programming.

</comment><comment><USER24> You don't need to move to Silicon Valley to create a startup. You can bootstrap one right now!

You're in an ideal situation where your only obligation is to do a couple hours of school work (and still get top grades). If you do as PG suggests, and eat ramen instead of steak (or even move back in with your parents), you can forego work and focus on bootstrapping your startup.

With an incredibly low burn-rate, you'll have a very long run-way... all while getting your degree.

Should you get a degree? Absolutely... unfortunately that piece of paper can open doors for you in ways you can't foresee right now.

</comment><comment><USER25> Don't forget that you can make great contacts during your c.s. degree. Also, the first year is usually they easiest one so maybe you will learn more things in the next years. Finally, reputation is really important and even thought you might seem to "lose 4 years" of your life, you will gain maturity and hopefully become more professional. Maybe, you could alter a little bit your schedule to add some management classes, marketing, communication, etc. Stuffs that might not excite you but that will strongly makes you a better employee or founder.

</comment><comment><USER26> At a minimum, earning a degree shows that you are capable of setting a goal and finishing a large project.

That will only help you later in life, and not just in terms of impressing prospective employers.

</comment><comment><USER27> You could try apply for a University Place in the US and study something more challenging, That way you could start working on the American Dream while studying.

<comment><USER28> Unlikely to be worth it, I'd say. His degree will be free in Norway, very expensive in the US.

Also OP if it makes you feel any better about the "hot California sun" thing it's cold and overcast out there today. Stick with your degree, kick all kinds of butt, and get hired by a big company, _then_ you can transition to a startup (not many startups will hire candidates from overseas, it's too much trouble).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Best in class is relative. CS degrees are in decline with regards to quality. Take a look at curriculums from the past and compare to yours today. I've done that at one Norwegian university. Clearly devaluated. Use your talents to find out and study what's missing in the modern curriculum.

And by the way; don't _get_ a degree; _take_ it. Even if it's easy.

</comment><comment><USER30> get your degree. university offers more than just learning. enjoy being young....go hang out with art students and talk late into the night with people who are striving to become the next generation of "responsible" adults....better yet take some credits in "arty" subjects - literature, music, fine art, basket weaving - whatever...it will broaden your horizons. if you are bored, bootstrap something in your spare time. heck - ask the students what things they would love to have on the internet and build it for them! universities are such rich environments full of interesting people.

</comment><comment><USER31> Unfortunately, this isn't a question HN can answer. It's not uncommon to be smart and not be cut out for school. The thing is that only _you_ can determine if you're cut out for it. How much longer do you have in school? Can you stand to be in school for that period of time?

If you can get a degree, absolutely get one. It won't get you any jobs, but it will get your foot in the door. On the other hand, there are other (arguably better) ways to get your foot in the door, such as having a set of side projects that show your passion.

</comment><comment><USER32> Spend a 5th of your time doing your assignments the day you get them and then :shock: spend the other 4/5ths working on projects that you do find challenging.

Although I comprehend the dream you don't have to be in California to be working on a start-up.

</comment><comment><USER33> My suggestion is to have a look at studying CS at Cambridge in the UK, it's one of Europe's tougher CS degrees plus there's a healthy startup community (both among students and is the local area).

</comment><comment><USER34> Seems like you really want to escape the cold. Can't you get a degree in California if money isn't an issue?

</comment><comment><USER35> Let me tell you a bit about how this works on the other side of the fence. I'm 26, and for the past three years I've worked as department manager in a well- known Norwegian software company, responsible for hiring in my group. I've evaluated a thousand different candidates and hired about a dozen full-time employees from all over the world.

In the end, it doesn't matter who you are, where you're from or what education you have. The only things that matter are whether you're excellent at what you do, that you have proven that you're capable of getting stuff done and that you'd fit in with the rest of the team.

If you start your own business, none of this is relevant, of course. As long as you ship something a sufficient large number of people are willing to pay for, you're set.

But most people work for others, and you probably will too before you've gained a sufficient level of experience to do your own thing. To get a job in the industry, you'll have to prove all of the above, and sufficiently impress myself or my peers elsewhere in the industry to get your inside the door.

An education is a great asset to start with. That piece of paper proves that you have at least three years of experience working with relevant subjects. If you've spent your time well and got to know all the industrious people at your university, you might already know someone working where you're applying for a job. That often gets you to the interview.

But that piece of paper is far from enough. I need to see that you've done something with your life, that you've _created_ something. It doesn't matter if it's contributions to an open source project, running the servers of your student organization or building your own business on the side. Show me that you care, that you love what you're doing, that you're capable of getting stuff done. If the classes are easy, you'll have plenty of time to do other stuff I'm more impressed by.

But do not, under any circumstances, get crappy grades in subjects that are "too easy". It is _not_ beneath you. You'll do boring and easy tasks even if you're a superstar, and that line of Cs on your transcript is a big, blinking warning sign I cannot ignore. If you don't care enough, you're better off without that piece of paper. Do your own thing, then, but you'll have to work twice as hard to prove yourself.

Not that it's impossible, of course. I have no education. Straight out of high school I applied for a five-week internship at my current company. I got good references from another employee, so I did get to the interview, and I did get the internship. And after eight days, I had a permanent job.

The pay was horrible, the work was - well, entry-level - but that was fine. As long as I could prove that I was great at what I was doing, I could advance. And so I did.

After two years I had the job I really wanted from the start. It was excellent. And after a few more months, I was promoted to be head of my department, despite being the youngest person on the team.

Three years later, my peers are finishing their degrees and applying for jobs. I'm very happy with my decisions so far in life, and think I've learned more this way than I would have done at a university. But I've had to work very hard to get here.

</comment><comment><USER36> I am currently 31, living in upstate NY.

I started college fulltime at 18. I started in physics, switched to IT. This was 1997.

I was working in the field for the likes of IBM and Xerox by the time I was 19. School quickly became deprioritized. This was 1999.

9/11 hits. This is the same year, or year before, I would have graduated on- schedule. A month later, I get laid off of an extended contract I'd been working for a year. For the better part of the next eight months, I can't get an interview aside from one job in Montana. MONTANA! I scrape by on freelance work. I land a job paying 50% of my last salary. After six months I switch over to a job paying 70% of my last salary -- still very disappointing, but livable, barely.

End of 2005, I quit that job and go back to Xerox for a second contract. Almost returned to my pre-9/11 salary. I happen to wrap up my associate's (AAS) degree in IT at this time. Six months later, I relocated to be closer to family. That job, in 2006, finally put me substantially over my pre-9/11 salary, at about 80th-85th percentile for my role nationally, and about 95th percentile for my role locally.

My independent consulting work starts growing significantly around this time.

In late 2008, I finally crossed the six figure mark in fulltime salary. I also made a healthy five figures in indie consulting in 2008 and 2009.

It would have helped me, I think, to have a degree PLUS my experience after 9/11. I don't think a degree alone would have done much for me -- all my four- and-out classmates were out of work and/or getting paid less than I was myself.

Does my AAS help me now? Doubtful.

Would a bachelor's help? Not salary-wise ... but it would be a nice step on the way to that Master of Science or MBA that I've always wanted ...

</comment><comment><USER37> I slogged through a 3-year Software Engineering degree in Canada (nearly as snowy & cold), but I don't think it was worth it. Getting a good job is more about timing and skill, all the best programmers dropped out of college. The goal of any educational institution is to make money, they don't really care whether you get a job when you're done or not. You can't work at Google (tm) without a Batchelors degree in Comp Sci or relavent experience, but TONS of Bay Area startups are eager to hire the best & brightest. If you can prove your coding skills, then you don't need the piece of paper to go to work for a startup.</comment>


Best Practices for Creating Useful Dashboards - <AUTHOR> https://dataschool.com/courses/building-a-dashboard-best-practices/lessons/the-introduction/ <comment><USER2> The chart type picture is somewhat small resolution (at least thats how it looks on a 4k screen).

There's a recommendation of a pie chart in there - stopped reading there. /s Seriously, though, even when it comes to a distribution to a composition, I'd go with a (vertical) bar chart - there's plenty of literature/comments against the use of pie charts.

"The only thing worse than a pie chart... are two pie charts"

I'm not sure if I missed it whilst glancing over the pages, but I didn't see any mention of interactivity. I think that especially nowadays, being able to slice-and-dice is quite important for a dashboard. There's so many angles from which the data can be looked at.

<comment><USER3> Hi, thanks for the feedback here. We mentioned the interactive display piece in the section on sharing the dashboard. Interactivity is important for a dashboard, especially in this day and age.

<comment><USER4> I noticed you didn't reply to the pie-chart feedback. I'll second that criticism: pie charts are unwise.

<comment><USER3> Agree, pie charts may have a narrow, if any, use case, however, some people LOVE them. Maybe not as much as I love commas, apparently.

<comment><USER4> Artists like pie charts because they're colorful and break the monotony of right angles. Scientists dislike pie charts because they don't convey information well. Who is your audience?

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally understand the feeling/frustration of pie charts being overused and often where they shouldn't be, and for the most part, I agree. I think it's always a good idea to stop and ask, "can a different chart convey the information better?" And the answer will almost always be "absolutely" when looking at a pie chart, no denying that. I will throw these two cases out for consideration of where a pie chart may be acceptable though:

1) As you mentioned, they're visually pleasing. No, that doesn't make up for when it's hard to read data, but I think a case can be made for snagging people's attention and getting eyeballs on a report you send out. If a pie chart is the hook that gets people interested in your data, maybe it's a sacrifice worth making. Artists aren't the only people who can find things visually appealing.

2) Basically, storytelling. There's no rule that says you can't show the same/similar data in different ways to help tell a good story. In some situations, it could make sense to start with a high-level visual breakdown of a group, and then use more detailed charts to get into the details you want to focus on (like how different segments relate). Or maybe the story I'm trying to tell has a ton of sub-groups which all pale in comparison to one dominant one. I think a pie chart visualizes that situation (where exact details aren't important) pretty well.

I ultimately just don't think it's a binary thing, where only artists will enjoy having a little visual variety and that any and every pie chart is a 100% waste of everyone's time. Most of the time, they're silly and an excuse for different shapes and colors, but I like to think even pie charts have their place in data visualization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Site appears to be experience the hug of death, Google cache:

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rCmcbq...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rCmcbqJNw2gJ:https://dataschool.com/courses/building- a-dashboard-best-practices/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the heads up here. We just took a look and things seem to be operating normal now.

<comment><USER6> Voiceover: It wasn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thanks for the write up!

Side note,

Adding this css would help with scrolling on mobile.

      overflow-y: scroll;
      -webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch;

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice, thanks. I'm still figuring out this WP plugin we're using for the guides, I'll give this a shot. Much appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> While this is good in the sense that 99% of dashboards are worthless drek and anything that helps that is good, the examples given here are surprisingly poor. Even a cursory reading of the book they themselves recommend (Stephen Few's "Information Dashboard Design") would know this.

In fact, it appears the author may not have even read Few's book because they fail to mention some fundamental points about dashboard design that need to be understood if the design isn't going to just be a form of simple data analysis tool.

Overall, if you're interested in dashboard design, I'd give this course a miss and just read Stephen Few's book on the subject.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> My teammate, Tim, put together this guide of tips for creating a simple and useful dashboard. We've been working on this new site/team putting together helpful articles for business users to learn about using data for work. Comments welcome!

</comment><comment><USER9> As a long time dashboard designer, I love this site

[https://www.data-to-viz.com/](https://www.data-to-viz.com/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Best Practices or "Building Dashboards for Dummies?"

<comment><AUTHOR> The guide is meant to be fairly "intro-level". Did you feel the points AREN'T best practices, or where you hoping for more information?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Boo. No pie charts.

<comment><AUTHOR> Never ever?

<comment><USER8> Almost never, and only when you know exactly what you are doing: [https://eagereyes.org/pie-charts](https://eagereyes.org/pie-charts)</comment></comment></comment>


Google's new book search deals in ideas, not keywords – Axios - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/googles-new-book-search-1523660313-183fb57a-7d2e-470e-92b2-b6c833d89663.html <comment><AUTHOR> It's live to play with here: [https://books.google.com/talktobooks/](https://books.google.com/talktobooks/)</comment>


Optimizing application performance with Amazon CodeGuru Profiler - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/optimizing-application-performance-with-amazon-codeguru-profiler/ <comment><USER2> It's a JVM-only tool. Doesn't help you if your code doesn't run in a JVM.</comment>


Uptime Robot Now Monitors SSL - <AUTHOR> https://blog.uptimerobot.com/introducing-ssl-monitoring/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm a big fan of Uptime Robot, been with them for years now. Not as many bells and whistles as other sites, but dang cheap and the main dev Umut (dunno if there is more than one) is a very nice guy and has answered every one of my pesky questions.</comment>