Monty Hall Problem - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem <comment><USER2> I found the easiest way to convince non-mathematical types is by suggesting we do the million-door version: "Ok, pick a door between 1 and 1,000,000. We'll call that door N. Now, I'll open 999,998 bad doors. So, now only door N and door 223,205 are still closed, and one of them has the good prize. Want to keep door N, or swap?"

<comment><USER3> You want to have an ugly argument with other developers, bring up the Monty Hall problem. People who are wrong will _not_ let it go.

We had it beaten into us not to use truth tables to solve problems in college, because it doesn't scale. But the Monty Hall problem has a finite set of states you can easily write on a piece of paper. And then you'll see that it jumps from 2/6 successes to 3/6.

I tried to replicate that table under duress once (see initial comment) and I couldn't get it sorted. I should try it again and write it down this time.

Edit: Why do work when you can find someone else who already has:

[https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/probabili...](https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/probability- and-statistics/monty-hall-problem/)

and particular to my statement, this table:

[https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/wp- conten...](https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/monty-hall-problem2.png)

When switching the number of lose scenarios is lower than a naive expectation of outcomes.

<comment><USER4> You have to be careful with the truth table method. It's easy to get it wrong, as your events might not have equal probability.

For example, we'll label the three doors P, L, R, for the prize door, the leftmost goat door and the rightmost goat door. This gives possibilities

1\. You choose P, Monty chooses L - switching loses

2\. You choose P, Monty chooses R - switching loses

3\. You choose L, Monty chooses R - switching wins

4\. You choose R, Monty chooses L - switching wins

This seems to indicate that switching gives you a 50/50 likelihood of winning. In fact, this is the correct truth table to use if Monty doesn't know which door has the prize. In that case, these are all equally likely.

Instead, if he does know where the prize is and won't open that door, this truth table is misleading because the cases where switching loses are less likely. If you choose L, he'll definitely choose R, but if you choose P, he has two options to split the probability.

Similarly, if you model Monty as not knowing what's behind the doors, then the truth table you're thinking of doesn't work. Either way, the truth table on its own isn't convincing.

The thing I find more clear is using Bayes' rule, as it shows exactly how the model of Monty's behavior affects the probability that switching is beneficial.

Let H be the event that your door has a prize and G be the event that Monty shows you a goat door. Then P(H|G) = P(G|H) * P(H) / P(G). Obviously, P(H) = 1/3 and (assuming Monty must pick a door other than yours) P(G|H) = 1, so it just comes down to what P(G) is.

If he always shows a goat, then P(G) 1 and you should switch. If he doesn't know what's behind the doors, it's 2/3 and it doesn't matter whether you switch. If he knows but prefers to spoil the prize, it's 1/3 and you definitely have the prize door.

<comment><USER5> I've always preferred to draw it out as a tree of what your your possible choices are at each stage, I find easier to get right _and_ I find that people understand it more intuitively.

           ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
           G             G             C
          ┌┴┐           ┌┴┐           ┌┴┐
      Stay│ │Switch Stay│ │Switch Stay│ │Switch
          G C           G C           C G

<comment><USER4> That has similar drawbacks of hiding the subtlety behind how Monty is being modeled. The tree you've drawn will tend to lead people to the wrong answer if you ask whether switching improves your odds when Monty doesn't know which door has the car.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is only a paradox due to very poor definition.

"You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat." Where does it state that the host always opens a door with a goat? From the statement it looks like the goat was accidental. No wonder Paul Erdős got confused by this too. The translation of the paradox to his language could have been even more confusing.

<comment><USER7> 100% this.

The first time I read about this problem, it was formulated in a way which made it clear that the host opens a door with a goat behind it. If you learn about it like this, you literally cannot believe how anyone (even Paul Erdős) could believe that switching is _not_ better. After all, you choose a door with a goat behind it with probability 2/3 on your first try, and if you do this, than switching will _always_ win you the car. It is so trivial that the only "paradox" here is that it is classified as a paradox.

E: the explanation on Wikipedia is unnecessarily elaborate and hard to follow:

"The given probabilities depend on specific assumptions about how the host and contestant choose their doors. A key insight is that, under these standard conditions, there is more information about doors 2 and 3 that was not available at the beginning of the game, when door 1 was chosen by the player: the host's deliberate action adds value to the door he did not choose to eliminate, but not to the one chosen by the contestant originally. Another insight is that switching doors is a different action than choosing between the two remaining doors at random, as the first action uses the previous information and the latter does not. Other possible behaviors than the one described can reveal different additional information, or none at all, and yield different probabilities. "

 _What?_

<comment><USER8> There are plenty of people who keep getting tripped up by this problem even when it's correctly formulated. Statistics and probabilities are sometimes incredibly unintuitive and hard for a lot of people.

I only took a single class of statistics at university, but my biggest take- away from that class is that you absolutely cannot trust your gut, because the human bias is crazy strong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This alternative formulation from a Mathematics StackExchange answer[1] makes the decision to switch much more obvious:

"There are three boxers. Two of the boxers are evenly matched (i.e. 50-50, no draws!); the other boxer will beat either them, always.

You blindly guess that Boxer A is the best and let the other two fight.

Boxer B beats Boxer C.

Do you want to stick with Boxer A in a match-up with Boxer B, or do you want to switch?"

[1] [https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/96826/the-monty- hal...](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/96826/the-monty-hall- problem/3360686#3360686)

<comment><USER10> I'm gonna have to do a lot of thinking to make sure this matches the problem at hand, but if it does this is an incredible translation.

<comment><USER11> Here's the explanation I like to use every year when this makes it to HN:

You pick door 1. Out of three doors you have a 1/3 chance of having a car behind your door. The chance that the car is behind one of either of the other two doors is 2/3\. Let's pretend that instead of opening a door and revealing a goat, Monty instead says to you "You can switch to both of the remaining doors. If the car is behind either one of them you get to keep it." Your likelyhood of getting the car by switching is now 2/3.

Instead, Monty does the statistical equivalent: He allows you to know for sure which of the other doors definitely has a goat.

<comment><AUTHOR> another way to think of it is:

monty has the car 2/3 of the time. when he has the car, he _must_ tell you where it is (by showing you where it isn't).

that last part is key. he is not making a random selection. so if you go with his remaining door, it will have the car the same 2/3 of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained > unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the > predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999).

this tidbit is pretty wild

<comment><USER12> What's even wilder is that the people working for game shows utilized this strategy long before it was a known, publicly verified thing. So someone who wasn't a world famous mathematician figured it out and was confident in their work - the same work that a renowned, industry-leading professional refused to believe.

<comment><USER13> Once you figure it out, it's pretty obvious though. And the game show people don't need a rigorous mathematical proof. You can simulate it with some playing cards and understand it in a hurry.

What made it very clear to me is if you just increase the number of incorrect doors that you open by a lot. (Making the assumption that the host knows where the prize is.) In that case, it's obvious that you're improving the odds by showing where the prize isn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It is really important to make it clear that:

1) Monty always opens another door (regardless of what is behind the door initially chosen by the contestant). He will never open the door the contestant chose.

2) Always opens a door with a goat behind.

3) These rules are known to the contestant

These premises are not intuitive, and some versions of the problem does not make them explicit, which is why it is more of a "gotcha" riddle.

In particular, the version quoted in Wikipedia does not make any of that clear. It just mentions the particular case of the host opening another the door with the goat. But without knowing the above "rules", this just means there is 50% chance per door now.

<comment><USER15> This ambiguity turned a really easy problem into one that people debated for decades for some reason

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here's another version that helps clarify it...

There are three doors, one has a prize and the other two are empty. You pick a door (say, Door 1). Monty then says that his assistant will move whatever is behind Door 2 (if anything) to Door 3. He then opens Door 2 to show you it is empty. Would you switch to Door 3? Of course you would.

But Monty's assistant is lazy, so instead of moving the contents from behind one of the closed doors to the other, he just asks Monty to open the one that he knows is already empty. The result is the same.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wrote about the Monte Hall problem back in 2005, and I made a simple simulator to demonstrate the success rate of door-switchers versus non- switchers: [https://www.damninteresting.com/appendices/monte-hall- simula...](https://www.damninteresting.com/appendices/monte-hall-simulator/)

<comment><USER18> I have been reading your website since the heyday of Digg. Thanks for the link - I thought you must have stopped writing around 2010.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think most people get it that prize is twice as likely to be behind one of the two other doors rather than behind the door you pick. So one time out of three you'll get it right while two times out of three the presenter indirectly indicates the winning door.

Edit. Be nice if my downvoter would explain what's wrong with the above.

<comment><USER20> This is probably the clearest explanation, sorry you were downvoted.

<comment><USER19> Thank you! It's nice to know someone else feels that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I saw an interesting perspective on the Monty Hall problem from judegomila earlier this month -

[https://twitter.com/judegomila/status/1183425802399969282](https://twitter.com/judegomila/status/1183425802399969282)

"Your brain will compute monty hall problem in fast casual causal mode AND/OR compute slow mode formally for the exact answer. Probability predictions that accurately map reduce to efficient intuitive representations in our brain dictate direction in our evolutionary biology."

"[since] we don't solve the monty hall problem effectively with our intuition, an evolving life form would be poor at resource collection from such problem sets without knowledge of axiom representation and formal probability."

<comment><USER22> "Sire. Shall we hunt in the valley, in the forest, or in the mountains?"

We shall hunt in the forest.

"Sire! Our scouts have just returned from the mountain. They report that the herds are not there at the present time! Shall we try the valley, or continue on to the forest?"

A) Stick to the plan, and hunt in the forest B) Hunt in the valley instead

<comment><USER23> The Monty Hall paradox hinges on the fact that the host knows in advance where the car is. If your scouts don't know where the herds are, but just picked an area at random to recon, then it is a different problem, and switching makes no difference.

<comment><USER24> But it doesn't depend on Monty knowing ahead of time. Monty can learn after you pick, but before he reveals (to be sure he doesn't reveal a car).

The scouts can depart after you've chosen the valley, find nothing in the mountain, give that information to you, and you _should still switch_ , even if the scouts didn't confirm where they are.

Monty(or the scouts), knowing if your original pick was right has no impact. The critical piece is that they are forced to reveal to you a bad choice. 2/3 times it's the only bad choice to reveal because you've picked the other.

<comment><USER25> If the herds might have been in the valley and don't happen to be, you learn something. Your odds rise from 1/3 to 1/2\. If the scouts _know where the herds are_ and specifically checked the valley because the herds weren't there, you learn more - your odds rise to 2/3\. But not as much as if they just told you where the herds are, so we're back to it being an unlikely scenario.

<comment><USER24> Nope. Monty still reveals a door even if your planned pick was correct.

The entire gain in odds is predicated on Monty being forced to reveal a bad choice _after_ you have chosen.

Monty knowing ahead of time has absolutely no impact on the outcome.

<comment><USER25> Knowing that Monty _could not have_ revealed the car (vs _happened not to_ ) has an impact.

If you are objecting to how I described that, in terms of who knows what when, then you may be right and I probably could have been more precise.

But if you are disagreeing that scouts sent to investigate an area and return an answer (which this time happens to be negative) differs materially from the original question then you are wrong.

<comment><USER24> > Knowing that Monty could not have revealed the car (vs happened not to) has > an impact.

Nope, it does not. The fact that he revealed a dud is what matters. The notion of him maybe revealing a car is senseless anyway because you would just then pick the car or the game would be over.

<comment><USER25> > Nope, it does not. The fact that he revealed a dud is what matters.

That's simply wrong. This has been discussed countless times on this forum. The most effective way to proceed is for you to spend 5 minutes writing the simulation that you think will prove you right. When I was on the other side of this, that experience is what convinced me.

> The notion of him maybe revealing a car is senseless anyway because you > would just then pick the car or the game would be over.

That's not a very strong objection - game shows are weird sometimes and could often apparently be easily improved.

But more importantly, it's an objection to the wrong thing. My point was that the presented "find the herds" problem _differed from_ the game show. "That would have been a bullshit game show" is just confused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's bedtime here so I'm just going to chuck this in and run away: when you've got _Monty Hall_ sussed, try _Tuesday 's Child_, i.e. "I have two children, one of them is a boy born on a Tuesday, what is the probability I have two boys?"

<comment><USER27> You're going to say it's 1/3\. I'm going to say that the problem is not described clearly enough to assert that.

For instance, let's say you tell me you have two children. One was born on a Tuesday, the other on a Wednesday. I ask about the one born on Tuesday, and you tell me it's a boy. With the information I have available to me at this point, I am correct to judge that the odds you have two boys are 1/2.

This story differs from the one you provided in ways that are insignificant for story telling.

The way you tell the story depends on the reader picking up on a rather tiny detail to reach the conclusion you intend. Specifically, the reader must come to the conclusion that you are someone playing games with them who has intentionally used very careful wording to only eliminate the girl/girl entry from the outcome chart.

That's not the way people communicate naturally. If someone says "I have two kids. One's a boy...", they aren't playing probability games, they're thinking of a child they'd like to tell you a story about. In that case, when they have a distinguished child in mind before making that statement, the odds are in fact 1/2 that the other child is a boy and hence you have two boys. (Modulo all the legitimate criticisms that can be raised that there are more possible outcomes than boy/girl and that even between those two the odds aren't equal. This is a simplification of reality for the sake of a puzzle.)

In the end, problems like this mostly hinge on poor communication that abuses common patterns to convey less information than the reader interprets from their experiences communicating in the real world. As such, they're really rather boring.

<comment><USER26> > You're going to say it's 1/3.

I most certainly am not. I'm going to say it's 13/27.

I agree the imprecise nature of the English language muddies the water somewhat, but the question can be re-framed to remove this aspect and yet still have people give the wrong answer, and as such is not just a "really rather boring" case of "intentional" "poor communication", but offers an interesting insight into the shortcomings of our intuition for probability.

So let's set aside the original problem and put this one instead (which may or may not be equivalent to the original depending on your interpretation, but let's take this in isolation anyway):

      Woman: How may children do you have?
      Man: Two.
      Woman: Is at least one of them a boy who was born on a Tuesday?
      Man: Yes.

What now is the probability the man has two boys?

The answer is in fact 13/27, because of the unlikely extra information revealed by the Tuesday condition, which I think is surprising and interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Instead of asking yourself "should I switch?", ask yourself "At the time of making my first guess, would I have bet that it got the car (1/3) or a goat (2/3)?"

Obviously the answer is that your first guess is more likely to have been a goat. So if you had to bet, you'd have bet on the car being in one of the ones you didn't choose.

After the host reveals a goat, it's no longer "one of the ones you didn't choose", but rather " _the one_ you didn't choose" (since the host has taken the other out of consideration). So the choice is easy now (as is the probability calculation).

</comment><comment><USER29> You probably picked a goat. When the host shows you where the other goat is, you switch to the car. Job done.

<comment><USER30> This is the best explanation I've ever read. Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Something that really adds to the confusion, is that "in a not mathematically perfect" world, the observer doesn't know whether the host will always open a door. When the candidate chooses the winning door, the host could always open another door, and when the candidate chooses a loosing door, only open another door with a reduced probability. Life teaches people to always be suspicious when free money is promised.

<comment><USER32> The "Monty from Hell" scenario (Monty only offers the choice if you picked the car, and otherwise does nothing), which the original statement of the problem allows, is IMO the most likely in real life because it would make for the most entertaining television.

<comment><USER33> You have real world knowledge of what makes entertaining TV, and perhaps how this particular show actually operated. And you are correct. In the real world, Monty Hall always revealed the worst of the two prizes that the contestant did not select. In the real world, you can use common sense and assume that Monty Hall will use that algorithm.

But in a mathematical probability problem, you can't do that. For example, if there's a slightly smaller object and a slightly larger object concealed in two different sized boxes, common sense says that a person would put the larger object in the larger box. But if it's a abstract mathematical probability problem, and you have no information on the algorithm used, then you have to assume the concealer flipped a coin when they decided which box to use.

If I'm the one setting up the big-small game, and I use the random algorithm, the smaller object is going to be in the bigger box about half the time. If my mom is the one setting up the game, the smaller object is going to be in the smaller box every time.

In abstract mathematical probability problems, if you don't know what algorithm was used, you aren't allowed to bring human behavior in, unless it's stated in the problem.

<comment><USER34> > But in a mathematical probability problem, you can't do that. For example, > if there's a slightly smaller object and a slightly larger object concealed > in two different sized boxes, common sense says that a person would put the > larger object in the larger box. But if it's a abstract mathematical > probability problem, and you have no information on the algorithm used, then > you have to assume the concealer flipped a coin when they decided which box > to use.

I think that this misrepresents mathematical reasoning.

For solving a problem in a textbook (which a mathematician does intensively at the beginning of his or her career, and seldom thereafter), you must assume neither—that the larger object goes in the larger box, nor that the concealer flipped a coin; you must use only the information contained in the problem. (From this point of view, many problems in most probability textbooks are ill posed, because they force you to make some assumption while solving them; and it then becomes a mind-reading exercise of whether you can successfully make the same assumptions as the poser, rather than a mathematical exercise.)

For a mathematician who actually wishes to use theoretical probability to do something useful, then you must again make assumptions that allow you to translate the messy real world into an idealised mathematical object; but to say that you must, or must not, assume any _particular_ thing is otiose—different assumptions will lead to different results, and the only guide to whether you made the 'right' assumptions is whether or not the idealised mathematical results you get match the real world (to within whatever bounds of error are tolerable).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> As a math professor recalling reactions back in 1990, there were various forms of "Marilyn vos Savant" bias in play. A good cover for gender bias was the absurdity of the world's highest IQ writing newspaper columns. There are plenty of other examples of narrow spikes in particular forms of intelligence having a crippling affect, while the most creative people I know work to change the world with less spectacular but more broad-spectrum cognitive advantages. Still, it's a bit of a leap to conclude she was actually wrong about this problem.

<comment><USER33> The key was... did Marilyn vos Savant state in her version of the problem that the host always uses an algorithm to open a door with a goat? (The alternative was that the host randomly picked a door, and this one time it happened to be a goat.) I read some of her articles on this topic, and my opinion was that in some of her articles, she did not state what the host's algorithm was.

So, yes, even a person with the world's highest IQ can make a mistake.

<comment><USER36> Her column was written for an audience that was familiar with the show. Monty Hall had, at that point, been opening doors and revealing goats-but-not-cars to contestants five days a week for more than twenty years.

<comment><USER37> But as Monty Hall himself notes, the game show rules did not actually require him to open a door.

> Hall clarified that as a game show host he did not have to follow the rules > of the puzzle in the vos Savant column and did not always have to allow a > person the opportunity to switch (e.g., he might open their door immediately > if it was a losing door, might offer them money to not switch from a losing > door to a winning door, or might only allow them the opportunity to switch > if they had a winning door).

If the host uses an adversarial strategy, such as only offers a switch when the remaining door is a goat, switching is not necessarily wise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It is famous for a reason. One should neither be shamed nor feel ashamed for not having intuition for this.

</comment><comment><USER39> The key to explaining the Monty Hall problem to someone is to reverse the logic.

When you picked a door at the start you may have excluded the winning door from the host. This has a 1 in 3 chance of happening.

So that means the host has a 2 in 3 chance of being left with the winning door.

The host who has knowledge can't pick the winning door, so those 2 in 3 odds are passed on to you if you switch.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think this solution can be very counter intuitive or natural depending how you picture the problem in your head.

If you are thinking about you playing the game then of course it is very counter intuitive, because you are playing the game and you have only one chance. Doesn't matter that by switching your chances rise to 2/3 because you play the game only once, and in the end you either win or lose.

On the other hand if you think about it from a statistic/probabilistic point of view then it's all natural that the chance is 2/3 but there is the notable exception that you don't play in this case and you neither win or lose.

</comment><comment><USER41> Not to be confused with the Monty Haul Problem from D&D.

[https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Monty_Haul](https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Monty_Haul)

</comment><comment><USER42> Initial pick: 1/3 chance of winner

Question: did you pick the correct door?

      - If correct, both remaining doors are losers, eg. {loser, loser}.
      - Otherwise, the remaining doors are {loser, winner}.
        And the loser must be revealed according to the game rules.

If you don't change your answer, you're stuck with the initial chance: 1/3

If you change your answer: (1/3) * 0 + (2/3) * 1 = 2/3

      - (1/3) you initially picked correct, then change to a guaranteed loser.
      - (2/3) you initially picked incorrect, then change to a guaranteed winner.

</comment><comment><USER43> However, the details of the problem matter more than you might think. On the original TV program, there were sometimes two contestants who picked doors for the grand prize. In such cases Monty would sometimes reveal a small prize behind the door selected by one contestant, and then offer the other contestant the option to switch. In that situation, the frequentist logic works out exactly the opposite, and the logic that says 'switch is better' when there is only one contestant says 'switch is worse.'

</comment><comment><USER44> I've had some luck explaining it by taking advantage of the sensitivity to fairness that people seem to have.

You are the contestant. You choose a door. Monty reveals a goat from another door.

Now, instead of giving you a switching choice, Monty picks [insert person you find annoying] from the crowd. Monty gives them the option of choosing your door (duplicating any prize) or choosing the other door.

The few times I've tried, people have seen it as unfair. But they don't necessarily see the 2/3\. They just see someone getting 1/2 vs their 1/3.

</comment><comment><USER45> Here is the scam version to make money out of math people who know the Monty- Hall problem.

You look at the 3 cards then put them on the table and propose a fair triple or nothing, if they can find the red queen.

You make them point toward the card they chose.

If they point a wrong card you go toward the card and reveal -> you won.

If they have pointed the right card, you return one of the card they didn't pick and ask them if they are sure or want to change. Because they think they are facing a Monty Hall problem they will switch. -> you won again. :)

<comment><USER46> This would only work on people who were made aware of the problem but spent no time understanding it and just memorized 'switch.'

Even if you didn't cheat them, this game has zero expectation value... I guess if you are working with people who wouldn't know this you are fine.

<comment><USER45> This is not cheating, you don't have to hide the fact that you know where the good card is. It is entertainment teaching a valuable lesson.

It is, as I said before, a fair game so it has zero expectation value for both players, better odds than a casino for the player and there is no reason for a gambler to refuse this bet.

In expectation you won't lose money, but people who think they know better will happily give you their money by making a bad move while being convinced they are getting an edge.

Most math-type people don't know the hypothesis of the Monty-Hall Problem and can't state it properly, but most have seen it played on TV-shows and know they must switch.

In the heat of the moment, especially if you have played a few follow the red queen games before, the brain is still in fast mode, and will jump to using heuristics. Mind trick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Monty Hall Problem is to me the single most bewildering and depressing thing when I wonder how come mainstream/basic/MBA economics still keeps rational agency as its central tenent.

I mean, if people can't sort _this_ out, how on earth someone that is not either extremely stupid or extremely evil (or both) can seriously think that people can figure out their optimal health insurance _even if_ the terms were not incomprehensible legalese designed to trick you?

</comment><comment><USER48> Here's how I finally understood it (I think):

Switching is only bad if you pick correctly the first time. Since you only pick correctly 1/3 of the time, switching must be no worse or better 2/3 of the time.

Since Monty will never open the door you picked nor the door with the prize, the remaining door after he opens one is the prize if you initially picked wrong, or a goat if you initially picked right. Since you initially pick right only 1/3 of the time, you switch.

</comment><comment><USER49> It's simple: choosing again switches from a losing outcome to a winning outcome and vice versa, thus the probability of winning by choosing again is 2/3.

<comment><USER28> That's a clean explanation.

Maybe needs one introductory sentence: "Note that your first choice has probability 2/3 of being a losing choice".

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Since my brain could not accept this long ago, I wrote a tiny script to see what the result would be if this was to be emulated. Works out perfectly! (Might need to update script for python 3). It's weird. Still feels so unintuitive. Which tells a lot about intuition I guess :)

[https://gist.github.com/kiriappeee/4316871](https://gist.github.com/kiriappeee/4316871)

</comment><comment><USER51> The one I have a hard time explaining to my friends is the Martian Potato Paradox. It's hard because I actually cannot wrap my head around the truth, even though I can explain why it's true.

[https://medium.com/i-math/matt-damon-s-martian- potatoes-1bcd...](https://medium.com/i-math/matt-damon-s-martian- potatoes-1bcde7c6f77d)

</comment><comment><USER52> Did some academic rewrite the article or is there some explanation as to why so many of the citations on that page are so un-Wikipeda-like?

<comment><USER53> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style)

Basically, Wikipedia does not mandate a citation style, it just has to be consistent throughout an article. And once set, another editor can't change it simply for personal preference. Presumably the original author, or whichever editor first added citations, was more familiar with this style, and so it has stuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Here's a great explanation: [https://mathigon.org/course/probability/monty- hall](https://mathigon.org/course/probability/monty-hall)

Had it in a browser reading list (that I'd forgotten was there), and came across it by chance yesterday.

</comment><comment><USER55> I wrote a post that explains this as well, including a playable game with cards (uses js) [https://www.michalpaszkiewicz.co.uk/blog/montyhallexplained/...](https://www.michalpaszkiewicz.co.uk/blog/montyhallexplained/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER56> There was a Tcl for Windows distribution that came with the simulation. A co- worker ran it out to some number of tries, and was satisfied.

By the way, you can get old Monty Hall shows on satellite TV to this day (or at least week)--a friend noticed it playing in a restaurant a couple of days ago.

</comment><comment><USER57> Previous threads for the curious: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=Monty%20Hall%20Problem%20comment)

</comment><comment><USER58> A Bridge from Monty Hall to the Hot Hand:The Principle of Restricted Choice

[https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.3.144](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.3.144)

</comment><comment><USER59> Not sure why you picked the Wikipedia entry - about 1000 more clearer explanations out there.

</comment><comment><USER60> Even though I think I understand the maths behind this, I'm one of those people who has never been able to fully accept it.

When you pick a door, the odds are that the prize is behind one of the other 2 doors (2/3 chance). Therefore when all but one of the other doors are eliminated, the remaining one is twice as likely to have the prize as the one you picked. Is that it?

I think my problem comes down to trying to reason about a past event using probability. I just can't get my head around that. Yes you can predict what is likely to happen if you repeat the experiment multiple times, but you're not being asked about that. You're being asked about this particular instance of the experiment. How can you know that you're better off switching _this_ time?

</comment><comment><USER61> I wrote a simulation that proves it pretty convincingly.

[http://rubyfiddle.com/riddles/7066f/4](http://rubyfiddle.com/riddles/7066f/4)

</comment><comment><USER62> A fun way to play with people who won't believe you is to say OK then, let's play 10 games @ $10/game:

Get 3 cards and pick one to be the prize. Your mathematically-challenged partner gets to put them down each time.

You pick a card, they remove one of the other cards and then you always switch.

I made like $50 from someone this way one time =)

I'm not totally heartless - I took him to lunch on me afterwards to lessen the blow ;-)

If you _really_ want to drill the point home, offer to keep playing more & more batches of 10 until they've had enough...

</comment><comment><USER63> I'm gonna pile on the hundreds of comments already existing and say that the _real_ key to the Monty Hall problem isn't about pure probability, it's about human interaction. The answer can be either 1/2 or 1/3 depending on Monty's motivations, his knowledge, and the way he decides what information to give you.

This is true for Bayesian updating on _any_ information, and is a good lesson for life in general.

<comment><USER64> The probability only changes if Monty can remove a prize door and does not reveal a goat. Monty's motivations and knowledge are completely irrelevant in the context of the original problem, because his actions are effectively forced (he reveals a goat).

If he can remove an unchosen prize door with some unknown probability p and does not reveal the contents of the removed door, then the probability of getting the prize by switching is simply (2/3)(1-p).

His motivations and knowledge just amounts to some distribution of p, but that's a rather different problem.

When the expected value of p is 1/2, then switching is equally likely to win you the prize as your original choice, but the probability of winning is still only 1/3 in either case. Only when p=1/4 will the remaining door contain the prize with probability 1/2.

<comment><USER63> This is exactly demonstrating my point. When smart people disagree with you over the answer, it's not because they're misunderstanding the question -- it's because they are not aware that Monty _must_ reveal a goat, which is almost never properly specified in the problem statement. It's usually stated as "you pick a door and then Monty shows a goat" which _does_ have an ambiguous answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> change the number of doors to 100 and the reasoning is obvious.

</comment><comment><USER66> Change the 3 doors to 10^6 doors and it becomes obvious.

<comment><USER28> No, it becomes less obvious, since the host's help has less influence the more doors there are.

EDIT: My reply is based on a misunderstanding. I was assuming that the host continues to open one door, whereas parent intended that the host would open all-but-one doors.

<comment><USER66> How eliminating 10^6-2 doors is less obvious?

<comment><USER67> Clearly you're assuming that with more than 3 doors, the host will open all but one, and they're assuming that the host will continue to open just one door.

<comment><USER66> The idea is to understand why it's better to change, not to introduce a new problem.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is Ancient Silicon the Root of Boeing's Problems? - <AUTHOR> https://www.palisadeshudson.com/2019/07/is-ancient-silicon-the-root-of-boeings-problems/ <comment><USER2> This is basically just a link to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20380523](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20380523) with lots of speculation.</comment>


Superhost (YC W14) Is Your Personal Assistant For Your Airbnb - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/25/superhost/ <comment><USER2> It's cool, but there is another real problem with renting out flats on airbnb.

Many people want to rent a flat they live in, only when they are away. However, they struggle to organize cleaning, keys, change of linens etc.

We are actually building a service to help them and launching soon in London. Contact me if you want to hear more and potentially try it soon.

<comment><USER3> "However, they struggle to organize cleaning, keys, change of linens etc."

Sounds like something that YC backed homejoy could get involved in solving. That's my keiretsu of the day. [1]

[https://www.homejoy.com/about](https://www.homejoy.com/about)

[1] [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/10/26/250008/)

<comment><AUTHOR> We like Homejoy and we use their service with some of our customers. The problem is that this isn't a complete solution and even though it is the sexy part it's not even the most time consuming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sort of reminds me of the services that would help you sell your crap on Ebay back in the day. Or even agencies that help manage your AdWords campaigns.

On one hand, I think we'll see more of these "management layer" businesses on top of other services (I have a couple friends who make good side money building out sqaurespace sites for people).

On the other hand, it seems opposed to where the actual service will head. AirBnB wants it to be _easy_ to rent your place out. They will keep making their tools/calendar easier to update. They will keep looking for ways to improve logistics (cleaning, key exchange). That's the risk, IMO.

If YC liked it enough to invest, there must be something to it. But, unless it's an acquisition to AirBnB play, I'm not sold.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am AirBNB host with multiple listings. I like the potential of this, but I'm extremely worried about the service based on the number of spelling and grammar errors on the site.

"We love innovations like bitcoin, But unfortunately our payment supplier don't process bitcoin yet."

Still, I am going to talk with them shortly. I like the idea, and 1% is low enough that it would be well worth the headache since I currently am at about 75% occupancy on my listings, and just getting the cleanings and linens scheduled is a PITA.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. This reminds me of PG's comments re: founders with accents. While the spelling/grammar errors don't necessarily preclude understanding in this case, they also don't exactly inspire confidence. You guys are clearly talented and onto something here -- but this is a weakness. Luckily, it's one that's easily addressed. Ask a friend or someone in your batch to proofread the copy, pay someone the small amount it would take to have it read nicely for end users, whatever.. just get it done. You'll see a good return on that money.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi, this is Amiad, one of the co-founders of Superhost. Feel free to ask me questions about our service.

<comment><USER7> Hi Amiad! Congrats and good luck first of all!

I would like to know how do you feel creating a startup totally built upon another company's service? How do you deal with and mitigate the risk of it?

My own startup is completely based on Facebook's check-in feature, and this worries me a lot. I deal with knowing I am still under their radar, but it is the first thing I want to create a plan b to after I get some market validation.

I mean, don't you fear AriBnb pulls a twitter on you somehow? Do you plan to expand your services further than AirBnb?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi and great question. First we don't limit ourselves in the long run to just one platform and our solution can work on all vacation rental platforms with not much to change. The reason we are holding back is that there is a big enough space for growth on Airbnb only at this tie and it's better to focus on the user experience than on expansion at this stage.

Secondly we believe in Airbnb and we only encourage more people to join their platform. To give some numbers - 30% of our users are new to Airbnb completely. So we feel Airbnb will have warm approach to Superhost rather than alienate us.

<comment><USER8> Do you see being independent of Airbnb as a value add in that even if they did "move up the stack" so to speak and copy you users would still prefer you as they are posting to multiple rental platforms?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How long until we see hotel-certified "indie" properties that act like franchises, complete with branded toiletries and a loyalty program for the network. "Four Seasons Oasis", "Marriott Anywhere".

Like how Trump just collects money by lending his name to other people's buildings.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a nice service. Which cities are you currently operating in?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. We are live in all USA!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this different from Urban Bellhop?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi - Urban Bellhop is a different service like others that were mentioned here.

You should think of us as your personal assistant - we don't go and clean ourselves but arrange a cleaner and coordinate everything. So we take care of all the hassle for way less than other services cost - only 1%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is exactly what airenvy does...they are a san francisco company to. Looks like a loaded space, fun fun!

</comment><comment><USER13> They operate in an occupying country. Shameful.

<comment><USER6> Bringing this kind of stuff to an HN post about a business is what's shameful.

<comment><USER13> What's shameful is disregarding "this kind of stuff" on certain forums, making it acceptable in public discourse. It's like asking the civil rights movement or SA's AAM to shut up in certain places. Anyway, this is not the place to have such a discussion. Just wanted to call them out for that.</comment></comment></comment>


Professing and Cheering - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/i6/professing_and_cheering/

<comment><USER2> Please don't post so much from just one site—15 posts in a row in 3 days is excessive. For curiosity gratification purposes, diverse sources are better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apologies, will do!</comment></comment>


Windows crushing Linux in netbook market: Acer  - <AUTHOR> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22362/53/

<comment><USER2> I'm not suprised.

I've gone in to several stores and taken a look at their netbook line-up.

The Windows netbooks are given glossy posters, with screensavers showing their specs and other marketing babble.

The Linux netbooks sit at the end, with the screen blanked and with no marketing whatsoever, other than a bold price tag.

Netbook manufacturers and retailers in general are failing really hard at marketing the selling points of these machines properly ("Comes with a free Microsoft Office-compatible Office suite and hundreds of other applications" and other benefits of the platform, better battery life, shorter boot times, etc..).

What worries me is that people will see this half-assed exercise and conclude that the Linux on consumer machines experiment has failed, when in reality it was never really given a chance in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find the linux they tend to put on these netbooks is crippled and streamlined to do only a few basic things. Perhaps that's making people think linux is useless?

</comment><comment><USER4> I found the linux that came with my acer aspire one totally unusable, but I instantly swapped it to ubuntu 8.10 which whips windows ass any day.

The problem is that they install totally worthless versions of linux on these machines because they are incompetent. Also the linux was modded to look like windows which would be confusing for anyone.

</comment><comment><USER5> They don't mention that, at least on amazon.com (haven't looked at .co.uk), the XP machine also happens to be the top of the line vs. the ones sold with Linux have half the specs (1024 vs 512 MB ram, 6-cell vs 3-cell battery, tiny SSD vs. 120GB+ hard drive).

I bought one with WinXP, and immediately threw Linux on it. I'm willing to believe I'm in the minority in doing so, but to say the _only_ reason people might be buying Windows is for Windows' sake, and not even mention this possibility to debunk it seems disingenuous to me.

</comment><comment><USER6> This just in: Windows is popular, Linux is for hardcore geeks. News at 11

<comment><USER7> That's true, but my experience of Linux on the eee pc has been horrible and I eventually switched to Windows so that basic stuff would work:

1\. I'd like to totally disable screen blanking

2\. I'd like the built-in wireless to work with a WPA2 network

<comment><USER8> I installed Ubuntu on my eeePC and the wireless works fine on my WPA2 network. Though I don't recall having a problem with the default Linux OS, either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You could also say "XP is crushing Vista in the netbook market."</comment>


Don't Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/ <comment><USER2> I don't think this will be a terribly popular opinion, but I want to offer a counterpoint. _Do_ call yourself a programmer, because we don't deserve to call ourselves engineers. You want to know some things that define _actual_ engineers, as the term is regulated in some countries?

Real engineers have _certification_ : you know, that thing that indicates that you can actually do your job worth a damn. What do programmers say whenever the topic of industry certification is brought up? Usually, furious opposition.

Real engineers have _accountability_ : engineers in a lot of other industries can be civilly or even criminally liable if their broken shit hurts somebody. What do programmers say whenever the topic of accountability for broken software is brought up? Usually, furious opposition.

Real engineers have _unions_. You know, that thing that keeps your labor from being exploited by-- just to give some hypothetical examples-- intentionally confusing and exploitative equity renumerance, or floods of H1-B workers. I shouldn't even have to tell you what the attitude towards most programmers is to unions, at least in America.

And whenever the topic of certification, or accountability, or unions, is brought up in the context of our discipline, the response is almost invariably, "Well, it's different for us, because $REASONS". Okay, fine, it's different for us, but then we shouldn't call ourselves engineers, because it's clearly a category error.

<comment><USER3> I've got certification - I completed the W3Schools HTML intro.

What would you put in software certification? If you focus on high-end CompSci stuff, it won't be relevant for the 99% who spend their careers building CRUD apps. If you focus on tools, it will be out of date by the time the exam papers are off the printing press.

I agree that there could be industry certification on topics like security and perhaps accessibility. But on everything else, the answers depend on so many factors, they can't be certified in a meaningful way.

Also, some of the best software engineers I know don't have certification because they struggle with exams. The ability to pass an exam doesn't make you a better engineer.

Certification is nice in theory, but in practice would probably lead to worse results.

I call myself a software engineer because it's what managers call me. As long as I don't claim to be able to build a bridge across the River Thames, I don't see the problem.

<comment><USER4> I agree with both the parent and this comment; this is why when i read "Software Engineer" i don't consider it to fit in the same bucket as any other "Engineer" in general.

As a "guy who writes code" \- call me whatever you want, i could probably give myself a fancy title and get away with it, but I am one of the very successful (When compared to the 99%) people who didn't finish school but managed to get by in the tech industry very comfortably. Life is already great, perhaps I just don't deserve to get everything my way.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. If I had been born 100 years earlier (maybe even 25 years earlier) I would have had a low paying menial job. I'm blessed to be in the job that I am, with the pay that I receive, and I am grateful for that every day.

I don't use "software engineer" as an ego thing, but because it communicates better the variety of knowledge I have to people that barely understand how to turn their computer on. I get better pay, my employer is happy, everybody wins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "Modesty is not a career-enhancing character trait"

It's hard to overcome though. In a previous role, I was the main UI dev on a rewrite of a top 10 ecommerce site's checkout process and also had a lead role in designing the checkout API that handles $billions in revenue a year. But it was really hard to get myself to add any of that to my resume or linkedin profile. Like I was worried about someone somehow calling me on it, even though it's completely true.

Of course, now that I've written that, I feel like it may have more to do with impostor syndrome than modesty.

</comment><comment><USER6> Wherever this guy has worked is where I never want to work. If people can't appreciate the value your engineers create then that's not a place to work. If this guy's advice applies to your job, get a new job. I'm not going to work at a place where I'm worried about "attaching myself to the company's profit center" and other bullshit and I've been a happily employed programmer for 9 years now.

<comment><USER7> Remember that d99? Getting a 1-95 are the places he describes. Congrats on making a good roll but this is still very relevant advice.

<comment><USER8> The nice thing about at-will employment is that you can always re-roll, and usually keep the max of the two (or three, or five).

<comment><USER9> You don't get an infinite number of rolls in your career though. If you rolled a low number, you might not know it until after a few years. A better analogy is a baseball game. You get a few at-bats throughout your career, and that's it, and you generally have to do them serially. Either you swing for the home- run and risk missing, or take the safe base hit and never end up scoring a run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Engineers are hired to create business value, not to program things

So is every employee of every company. They create business value by doing what their role is. This is the point of a company, this is how it's always worked. The role of a programmer is to program things. So a programmer programs things, and that is what they are hired for.

Why do we constantly get blog posts discussing ridiculous semantics like this?

Sure, it might work for some companies, but that's so utterly unimportant. I'm a programmer, I tell people I'm a programmer, I'm paid to program business applications, and I'm happily employed and liked by my superiors and company. Clearly this line of thought also works fine.

So maybe the best advice is to just do what you do, call yourself whatever, and cut it with these self-important blog posts preaching your way to everyone else as though it's some holy advice on cracking the employment puzzle.

<comment><USER11> Semantics matter. Especially when you're trying to sell something, such as your skill set. Ever had to lobby your idea or project to a non-technical decision maker? You can't whip out the technical jargon and explain in minute detail why your solution is obviously the correct one. The non-technical decision maker is going to gravitate toward the option that is wrapped in the most appealing narrative - hence the semantics.

That's great that your happily employed and are well established in your company. I'm not. And a big junk of the problem is because of what Patrick discusses in that post. I'm an engineer who was hired to work in what is perceived as a cost center. Because of that, many of my solutions to problems are only allowed to be half implemented or they slide lower and lower down the priority list as more urgent tasks come up. The only reason they're more urgent is because someone can directly tie them to making money. Telling someone you "program" things doesn't tell them what value you bring to the table.

I wish I'd read this post 5 years ago when it was published and I might not be in such a sticky situation.

<comment><USER10> > Ever had to lobby your idea or project to a non-technical decision maker?

This is actually my job; I'm an architect and I interface a programming team with non-technical superiors (I simplified my position previously to make a point).

Part of my spiel in talking to non-technical superiors is being straightforward and bullshit-free. If something's a program, I call it a program, not a solution, business lalaploo, schpleplipagan, or quilbilbalala wrapped in bacon. It's a program, and it's programmed by programmers who are hired to program and spend their time programming. My non-technical superiors cherish this directness and lack of semantically loaded garbage. They "gravitate" towards the most clear and well-put solution, and part of that is not to wrap it in _any_ narrative whatsoever, but to tell them straight up what the situation is. By wrapping something in a narrative, and trying to make it seem more than it is, it starts sounding less like professionalism and more like philosophy, and you instantly set off my bullshit detectors (and those of my superiors too). It starts smelling of indirectness and ulterior motives.

And this goes the other way too--when hiring someone, I'm hiring a programmer. Not an artist or philosopher who can tell me what silly billy value they add to my company. _I_ decide what value they add; if they add any at all, it's the value of the programs they program (don't take that the wrong way--this is a lot of value, and I appreciate it fully, but it's still programming programs --the programs are the vehicle with which they add value).

<comment><USER11> I'm at a rather large company and management doesn't understand enough about what they're doing to know exactly what provides value and what doesn't, much less who is providing that value. I'm guessing once a company reaches a certain size, a lot of that becomes illegible.

I prefer to be direct and as clear as possible, but that hasn't been what's gotten me results. I watched how others (more senior engineers) were able to influence decisions and found that they were some of the best bullshit artists I've ever seen. So I adapted how I communicated as much as possible without compromising my ethics. I'm leaving my company, hopefully to join a company more like yours.

Patrick's advice hit pretty close to home for me.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, maybe I do lack some perspective having never worked for a truly giant company. My parents both work at massive banks (in technology, in fact, my dad has almost the same job as I do), and a lot of what they talk about is how much politics they have to do on a daily basis that has nothing to do with their job, but rather just appeasing golden retrievers with treats and belly rubs.

But then, this goes even further to show how every situation is different and there's no umbrella of advice that works for employment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The headline misled me. The gist of the article is good.

Two of the article's main points are solid:

(1) On your resume and in interviews, talk about results more than technology. Instead of "I know Python" or even "I've used Python for five years," it's stronger to say, "I rewrote the company billing system, used by 100 people, saving $100,000 in licenses." Have bullet points like that on your resume. This advice first came to me from a book on making resumes, given to me by a friend who works as a recruiter. It's okay to mix in technical, of course. A good example is actually this Hacker News comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8902739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8902739)

(2) Don't neglect the human factor. Basically it boils down to trust. Put yourself in the employer's shoes for just a second. Hiring a new employee is a significant act of trust. It should come as no surprise. Have you ever said to yourself at work, "Wow, I really can see everything. I could really do a lot of damage, if I weren't such an upstanding citizen." Exactly. The problem I guess is that most people don't have the time and money to check you out as well as they should. So they resort to all manner of shortcuts, like: are you well-dressed, are you clean, are you polite --- or do you come across as someone building a bomb in their basement, or someone who might build a bomb at my company if I don't buy you the right monitors? Other shortcuts are prevalent, like: are you a friend or relative of someone I already trust?

Yes, this is all embarrassingly low-resolution instrumentation for indentifying a good employee. However, can you think of anything better? Maybe you can. If so, there's loads of money to be made. Just try not to make it scary, like trying to algorithmically score a person based on key words in their opus of tweets.

</comment><comment><USER13> This was the first post I ever read by Patrick. It and Joel Spolsky's blog should be regarded as compulsory reading for all CS grads. Definitely set me on the right path.

I think a good follow up of "don't call yourself a programmer" is "Don't look for a job". The moment you start looking for a job, you're pretty much that "Java programmer" again. Somehow, the people I meet who can't find a job are those who are looking, while those who speak about their employment in literally any other way than "looking for a job" never seem to have a problem. I don't know exactly which way the causation link works (maybe people who are good at getting jobs are privileged enough to not have to think about it in that way), but I'm pretty sure that the word 'job' and mental model associated with it is not optimal.

<comment><USER14> >Somehow, the people I meet who can't find a job are those who are looking This is a pretty clear example of a biased sample. If someone can find a job easily, then you won't spend much time looking for one. "Don't look for a job" is terrible advice for people who don't have jobs. Also, if you can't think of a good reason for a causation link you should really consider that maybe it is due to a confounding variable (there is no direct causation link).

<comment><USER13> Eh, I phrased it badly. Wasn't trying to distinguish between employed and unemployed people, but rather a distinction between those who don't have a job and say "I'm looking for a job" and unemployed people who phrase the same idea in a different way..

<comment><USER14> I think the point still stands, the longer you spend unemployed the more likely you are to describe yourself as "looking for a job" (unless you have given up entirely). If someone describes themselves as not looking for a job when they don't have one, it is possible they are just telling the truth, and when they do decide to look for a job they can find one quickly. I am pretty skeptical that thinking of yourself as looking for a job really causes you to have difficultly finding one - like you said, there isn't any readily apparent direct causative link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >95~99: Your equity grant is a lifechanging amount of money.

> 100: You worked at the next Google, and are rich beyond the dreams of > avarice.

Wait, so 5% of tech employees with equity grants make either a "life-changing" amount of money or an effectively endless amount?? Wow-- That seems to be a very high estimate. I would have thought that MAYBE 0.5% end up with "life- changing" liquidity, and MAYBE 0.001% end up multi-multi-millionaires.

<comment><USER15> You forgot to read the next sentence:

> Perceptive readers will note that 100 does not actually show up on a d100 or > rand(100).

That makes the whole point ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > (There's nothing wrong with this, by the way. You're in the business of > unemploying people. If you think that is unfair, go back to school and study > something that doesn't matter.)

Good grief, what a lovely offhand comment that is.

</comment><comment><USER17> In a promotion review, being able to say my project drove $X in revenue wins almost every time against any other metric. It's easy to state and directly relates to the companies business goals.

<comment><USER9> I always have been uncomfortable with the honesty of those kinds of claims (although I hypocritically use similar language on my own resume). Say there were 100 people on the project that drove $X in revenue: Was the contribution evenly distributed? Did your contribution account for $X/100? If you were not on the team, would it have driven $X-Y revenue (in which case you only added $Y in value)? Surely employers aren't dumb or fooled by such wording.

<comment><USER18> You're not claiming you personally drove $X in revenue. You're claiming that the project did, and that you were critical or at least instrumental to its success. If you can back those claims, you're not lying and you have no cause to worry over your honesty. If you can't back them, don't make them.

<comment><USER19> The project didn't drive the revenue though. The customer demand did.

<comment><USER20> Which you could say about pretty much any feature on a customer based business model.

But customer demand is only useful if you can turn the demand into a sale and a happy customer. Measuring the conversion of an interested user to a customer is how you measure return on investment for features.

If what you did meant an increase in revenue from those customers, then it is fair to say it drove revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would love to have a proper PE type thing for Software. I find it absolutely infuriating that "developers" refuse to accept accountability for the things they write.

<comment> FLUX-YOU Then they'll just eliminate QA departments. If the guy doesn't produce perfect code, oh well, he's the liable one. Fire him and get someone else. The business takes on literally zero risk by employing the developer in this case.

If you want to treat us like doctors and lawyers, you'd better give us their salary, benefits, and social status after we put in 4-8 years becoming qualified to meet this new threshold. Of course that's not going to happen, so guess who benefits by switching the industry to professional licenses?

<comment><USER21> Except engineers who have PEs and FEs don't exactly have massive salaries. "Software Engineers" are paid EXTRAORDINARILY well, especially compared to the amount of effort needed for that salary.

<comment><USER22> > "Software Engineers" are paid EXTRAORDINARILY well, especially compared to > the amount of effort needed for that salary.

Sometimes I feel weird that I've been paid six figures+ to glue an API to a JavaScript frontend, especially at my age. But that's just the current market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Don't call yourself a programmer" is a very old one; it's why we have titles like "software engineer", "software developer" and so on; those are reactions to "programmer analyst" and old stuffy "IBM-mainframe-ish" titles of that sort. You might have easily heard that advice in 1990.

Do call yourself a programmer _to regular people_. :)

</comment><comment><USER24> It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a programmer or an engineer. In the software industry there is no standard for titles. They have misused this right from the beginning.

I am more upset that technical people are always seen as resources. You might feel you are building a great product and contributing to the great good. In reality, you are just a tool for someone to make money. You are an expendable resource who can be replaced in no time.

The management does fear attrition and key people leaving, just because it is a problem for them and a risk for the business if key supporting people leave. It might give them a setback. But in reality the management in every company thinks that they can find some other guy with equivalent/better knowledge, experience and he can replace you.

I sometimes fear that when I turn 60 and look back and realize that so many X no. of nights I spent was only to realize that I was eventually replace by someone and the top management people made a hell lot of money by selling the company.

<comment><USER25> > It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a programmer or an engineer

Did you read the article? He does not suggest calling yourself an engineer as an alternative to calling yourself a programmer

<comment><USER26> I think he meant it doesn't matter how you call yourself at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This article nails it. Excellent advice.

If you read nothing else, read: Engineers are hired to create business value, not to program things

</comment><comment><USER28> That's dated, in that companies now outsource profit centers. Apple outsourced manufacturing to Foxconn.

<comment><USER29> Companies that outsource their competitive advantage have no reason to exist; they're middlemen that will be squeezed to nothing.

Manufacturing is a cost center, not a profit center.

<comment><USER30> Well, it depends. Manufacturing might be a profit center if your business is being a manufacturer.

<comment><USER31> Definitely - the manufacturing that Apple outsources to Foxconn is a cost center for Apple, and a profit center for Foxconn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Similarly, even though you might think Google sounds like a programmer- > friendly company, there are programmers and then there's the people who are > closely tied to 1% improvements in AdWords click-through rates. (Hint: > provably worth billions of dollars.)

It's hard to quantify the benefits your work brings to a company. Probably worth the effort, but for most jobs it's going to involve some time with pen and paper and some imagination regarding counterfactuals.

> I recently stumbled across a web-page from the guy whose professional bio is > "wrote the backend billing code that 97% of Google's revenue passes > through." He's now an angel investor (a polite synonym for "rich").

Wait. Yes there's a number in there but it's not one that attempts to quantify benefit. So is this guy just saying you need to quote a number (preferably high), doesn't matter what it relates to?

</comment><comment><USER33> I believe the term for this is called "Title Inflation".

</comment><comment><USER34> As a student doing his graduation internship in a large corporation, I'm starting to see these things in real life. Is this going to be anywhere close to the norm? I'm starting to consider a nomadic lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER35> A lot of the comments seem to miss out on the basic premise which is: Don't sell yourself to business by taking a technical approach. (I do programming).

It is much more effective if you approach business as \- I solve problem X

</comment><comment><USER36> > Nobody ever outsources Profit Centers.

The ironic part is that for every engineer being outsourced there's a new project manager being hired. And managers aren't any profit centers either. So why is this then?

<comment><USER9> How about project managers are cheaper?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Hit the nail on the head I feel - as a recent college grad I really enjoyed this article and what it had to offer.

</comment><comment><USER38> Call yourself whatever the company you want to be hired by wants.

</comment><comment><USER39> Full-stack cross-functional technologist ?

</comment><comment><USER40> I was drilled from birth by PE-license-holding parents that "Engineer" is a regulated term that you can't legally describe yourself as without the license.

They're correct; it's just that the rule is flouted to the point of non- existence in tech.

<comment><USER41> They're correct about "Professional Engineer" in Canada, not everywhere else. It varies by jurisdiction and wording.

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

If tech companies were breaking the law, someone would be suing.

<comment><USER40> >If tech companies were breaking the law, someone would be suing.

I wasn't referring to tech companies, but individuals calling themselves an engineer, so I don't think that applies.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Startups or corporate companies, which one is best for a new grad? - <AUTHOR>

Which one is best in terms of learning for a new grad? And which stage do you think is best to join a startup at? <comment><USER2> At a startup, it's either worth joining at the very, very beginning (preferably as a cofounder), or after the company has real market traction and has its tech DNA figured out. Being an early employee sucks rocks--the stress is high, the pay is shit, the equity is bad, and the glory is nonexistent (because everybody is usually busy jerking off over how great the founding team is, because mythos and branding and culture).</comment>


Show HN: CodeWyng – painless code review for Go, hover docs, jump-to-definition - <AUTHOR> https://codewyng.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm building CodeWyng, a Chrome extension for GitHub that brings IDE-like features (hover documentation, jump-to-definition, and find-references) to code on GitHub. It works for Go right now, with more language support on the way.

It supports local variables, works on any commit/PR, and understands Go well enough to disambiguate between different functions with the same name.

Looking for feedback and early adopters!</comment>


Show HN: Coding Scriptures - <AUTHOR>

I would really like feedback on the startup I'm working on, Coding Scriptures, which aggregates curated content on coding and startups.
The roadmap involves adding Guest Curators' Content Charts, as well as a review feature.
Do you find it useful? Ideas welcome.
http://www.codingscriptures.com
Thanks a lot! <comment><USER2> I like the concept. Similar to www.startupscriptures.com

Liked a lot the blog list, some very interesting content there. Also had a quick look at the libraries and apps section and there's good stuff on filtering.

</comment><comment><USER3> Posts without urls get penalized, so you would be better off posting this as a Show HN that points to your site, then adding the text above as a comment to the thread. Good luck!</comment>


The Computer is a Communications Disease - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363597,00.asp

<comment><USER2> I'm tempted to refute point by point... but Dvorak is often just an elaborate troll. Speaking loudly against common wisdom is a fairly reliable way to eyeballs.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think that McLuhan (in Understanding Media, back in 1964), said something about our developing an external, electric nervous system.

We've not quite come to grips with that yet.

<comment><USER3> Maybe that's what all this discontent with Facebook is growing toward. As people look around and realize that their relationships aren't really being enhanced by this new technology, but instead trivialized and put to work for advertising dollars, they will start to develop an electronic/social immune system that causes them to operate in a way that more clearly protects their privacy and best interest. Perhaps then we'll see more technology designed to submit to the user, instead of the other way around.

Unlikely, and perhaps too much to ask. But I'm hopeful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As usual, Dvorak's point is crude and overstated.

But in general I think he's more right than wrong.

<comment><USER5> You've got to be kidding. Porn is destroying society's moral fabric? If porn is capable of this, there wasn't much fabric in the first place.

He's also concerned about the fact that people have become cyborgs, tethered to fancy tools.

Sure, the internet is destroying traditional news organizations, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The fall of the newspaper isn't signaling the end of society... just maybe society as we know it.

I'm with potatolicious - this is merely flame bait.</comment></comment>


A Summer Without Sunspots - <AUTHOR> https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/09/26/a-summer-without-sunspots/ <comment><USER2> The next solar cycle is predicted to be about half as strong as 24, possibly leading up to a grand solar minimum not seen since the Maunder minimum in 1645. Based on historical records as well as ice core and tree ring data, there will be a profound effect on climate if this turns out to be true.

NASA prediction: [https://youtu.be/jP9_4uoEdKg](https://youtu.be/jP9_4uoEdKg)

<comment><USER3> If you think global warming is no fun, you haven't seen what global cooling will do.

<comment><USER4> Except that global warming is so out of hand that the 0.3 degree cooling effect means absolutely nothing now. Back in the 1600s, there wasn't much in the ways of industrialization and pollution to warm the planet.

<comment><USER5> Can you point at the data you based your claim that _global warming is so out of hand that the 0.3 degree cooling effect means absolutely nothing now_ on? I've been going over a lot (and I mean a __lot __) of data from many different sources. What I mostly noticed is that the temperature has been going up steadily from the early 1900s to around the mid '40s, after which it went down again until the mid '70s, after which it went up again. The current warm period seems to resemble both the Roman warm period (~350BCE-450CE) as well as the Viking age/Medieval climate anomaly, two relatively warm periods in recent history. The Roman warm period was followed by the Dark ages cold period (~450-850CE), the Viking age/Medieval climate anomaly by the Little Ice Age (~1350-1850CE). Judging by previous data it is likely that the current warm period will also be followed by a cold period, just as has happened countless times already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just this last year took my technician (american) ham radio test, but I'm having a hard time remembering my propagation rules (there wasn't a heavy emphasis because it doesn't really affect the 2m and 70cm bands that I'm actually allowed to use). I recall that the solar cycle coming around means better propagation, but I can't remember which bands and how much. Can someone help me out?

<comment><USER7> Top Google hit, apparently from 1996 [http://www.arrl.org/here-comes-the- sun](http://www.arrl.org/here-comes-the-sun)

Some other sites [http://www.solarham.net/index.htm](http://www.solarham.net/index.htm) [https://hamradioschool.com/sunspots-and- propagation/](https://hamradioschool.com/sunspots-and-propagation/)

<comment><USER8> TLDR: Since we're at the minimum now, if you want to chase DX, stick to the 30, 40, 80, and 160 meter bands at night. You might get something on 15, 17, or 20 meters. It will be a few years before the higher bands open up again.

There's a nice chart of when you can get DX in each band in this article:

[https://www.eham.net/newham/bands](https://www.eham.net/newham/bands)</comment></comment></comment>


Telecommuting Can Make the Office a Lonely Place, a Study Says - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/business/telecommuting-can-make-the-office-a-lonely-place-a-study-says.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> I can relate to the research. In an office of about 70 staff there are days when we have less than 10 people at their office desk (either because they are working from home or on client sites). And it certainly makes me question why I bother going into the office on those days.</comment>


Review of Studies About Standing Desks - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcodesign.com/3045217/evidence/everything-science-knows-right-now-about-standing-desks <comment><USER2> Also good to mix things up, and not overdo the standing either.

[http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/13/the-dangers-of- sitting...](http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/13/the-dangers-of-sitting-at- work%E2%80%94and-standing/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone in the UK have a recommendation for a decent sit/stand desk for a reasonable price? IKEA have some lovely ones but they are _significantly_ more expensive than the regular sort of desk (£450 vs. ~£80...).

<comment> a-guest I believe the IKEA desk you are referring to is the IKEA BEKANT. In the standing desk world, this is one of the cheapest ones out there. I was able to test one out at a local IKEA store and my initial reaction was: this could be pretty cool! The wirecutter has an extensive review of standing desks that you may find helpful if you did not already come across it. You will discover useful information in the comments, too. [http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-standing- desk/](http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-standing-desk/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unfortunately, they didn't control for how active people are outside of the office. These sound a lot like the benefits of simply being physically active.

</comment><comment><USER5> Url changed from [http://blogs.plos.org/obesitypanacea/2015/09/16/everything-s...](http://blogs.plos.org/obesitypanacea/2015/09/16/everything- science-knows-right-now-about-standing-desks/), which points to this, which seems to be a more informative summary.</comment>


How Emacs beat vi in the Editor Wars - <AUTHOR> http://trevorjim.com/how-emacs-beat-vi-in-the-editor-wars/ <comment><USER2> Just before the heat death of the universe, the last detectable message from the last computing structure dissolving into an entropic goo will be "emacs rules vi drools". There is something oddly comforting in that fact for those of us of a certain age...

</comment><comment><USER3> Even with tongue firmly in cheek, the argument that browsers' casual adoption of emacs bindings signalling victory over vim (as if non-modal browsers had a choice) is meritless.</comment>


The Expression Problem and Tables - <AUTHOR> http://joelburget.com/the-expression-problem-and-tables/

<comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9406815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9406815)

<comment><AUTHOR> Huh? Strange, i tried the search but nothing came up.</comment></comment>