California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-restrictions-on-water-use-by-farmers.html <comment><USER2> About time.

Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1].

There's no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer's a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/ag...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/agriculture- is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to- cut-back/)

 _edit_

For clarification, mentioning the GDP is meant to show that cutting back on agricultural usage will not affect our economy catastrophically even if the industry sinks a bit. Will food prices go up? Perhaps.

Further, if the point is food _production_ and not food _profit_ for the nation then the focus should be on producing the most water efficient foods (per calorie) not the most profitable foods produced under an assumption of free or near free water. So yeah, that might mean less prime rib and more black eyed peas for Americans (figuratively speaking).

The cost of the product should reflect the cost of the resources required to produce. This is not the current case.

<comment><USER3> The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. What does watering one's lawn contribute to?

<comment><USER2> The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass super aggressive water conservation laws targeting residential use such that it's reduced by 50% then you've conserved a whopping.....

10%

In contrast, a mere 12% increase in agriculture efficiency gets you the same win.

Targeting residents to curb the water crisis in CA is like targeting SNAP benefits as a solution to the deficit.

It just plain won't work.

<comment><USER4> While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn. And the response of "cities" like Los Angeles is to subsidize people's servants completely redoing their yards!

Implementing water restrictions is incredibly easy - you declare "no outdoor water usage except on these two days of the week after 5pm" and issue fines to people who don't comply. But it is incompatible with Californian entitlement, because _gasp_ the grass might get a little brown.

<comment><USER5> I'm sorry, but have you ever been to Los Angeles? Where is this mythical place you're talking about with these mythical people?

I live in Los Angeles proper, and the majority of my neighbors already had low-water lawns to begin with. Those that don't (including me because the owners of the house I rent don't want to change it) are basically just letting the lawn die because we understand the situation and really aren't that vain.

Also, we do have watering restrictions and the city does give out fines if you don't follow them. I'm not sure what you're talking about, frankly.

<comment><USER4> Actually yes, I'm on the west side right now.

I'm in one of the few buildings without grass. The sidewalk across the street is damp every morning. Walking around, I often see pools of runoff that have persisted throughout the day. Most all the lawns are still being trimmed every single week. Maybe this neighborhood is just terrible.

Are there actually any restrictions besides [http://www.lawaterrestrictions.net/current-water- restriction...](http://www.lawaterrestrictions.net/current-water- restrictions/) ? To someone used to the Northeast's late-summer restrictions those are laughable - you can still water your lawn every day of the week!

Good on you for letting your lawn wither, but I assure you that the out of touch culture is alive and well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> But rather than reducing, even a little, the giant water subsidy that agriculture gets (senior members of the agribusiness establishment pay pennies on the dollar), it sounds like we're just telling some unlucky farmers they now have a cap on their usage.

This is not an economically-optimal approach.

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't that simply cause increased costs to be passed to the consumer (or just accept lowered profit), as opposed to doing what is necessary, which is reducing water consumption?

<comment><USER8> Increased product prices would likely lead to reduced demand and in turn smaller farm output and water usage. Same is true for industry that also uses enormous amounts of water.

<comment><USER9> Reduced demand, smaller output ... sounds like some CA farms will be going out of business. Which, in a heavy drought, is probably inevitable anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recently read East of Eden, and even though it was written about 19th century California, some topics resonated very well today. This quote, in particular:

"And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way."

<comment><USER11> A bit unrelated, but u should check out Ken Burns' doc on the Dustbowl. Its fantastic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why can't we just have a 2 tier water pricing system? Tier 1 is very cheap, so that everyone can afford water to drink and wash themselves. Anything over that amount in tier 1 get's priced at something more realistic. That incentivizes industry to be economic about their water usage and private people are deterred from being wasteful.

<comment><AUTHOR> that would require new infrastructure in _all buildings_ to have two sets of pipes.

edit: apparently i misunderstood the parent and it cost me 5 downvotes

<comment><USER12> Uh, why? We already meter usage, so apply the tiered rates the same way we tier electricity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Scott (from slatestarcodex) suggests[1] CA buy out all of its alfalfa farmers Catch-22 style [2]. The total pay out would cost on the order of a couple of dollars per CA resident which is far far cheaper than the alternatives. Alfalfa is an extremely water intensive crop that is used to feed cows. This measure would save water commensurate to the amount we lost in the drought.

This is the easily the best proposal I have heard but it stands no chance of passing. Paying farmers in the desert to not grow crops is ... unamerican.

[1] """I realize that paying people subsidies to misuse water to grow unprofitable crops, and then offering them countersubsidies to not take your first set of subsidies, is to say the least a very creative way to spend government money – but the point is it is better than what we're doing now."""

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you- do...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-doing/)

[2] """His [Major Major's father] specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce"""

<comment><USER14> I'd think your best bet would be to buy the land currently used to grow alfalfa and permanently fallow it rather than trying to run a program where you pay alfalfa farmers not to farm. The latter program has the obvious problem of identifying would be alfalfa farmers once no one has grown alfalfa in a while.

<comment><USER13> I agree, but this would be more expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can someone explain to me why we don't just build a pipeline from Seattle or some rich water source up north down to California?

<comment><USER16> Seattle isn't actually that rainy, it's just a constant drizzle, actually. Water restrictions about on the summer also.

If you want to see how it is done, China recently built a north south water diversion canal. Though it hasn't paid off yet.

<comment><USER16> Just more context: [http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/seattle- does...](http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/seattle-doesnt-get- that-much-rain/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Good, the gordian knot needed to be cut. 165 years of near-unrestricted use of the flowing commons needed a stop.

<comment><USER18> Now if only they would follow the 200 year old recommendation of economists and put a price on it.

EDIT: To clarify, consensus on the role of prices on economic allocation goes back to Adam Smith, but using prices specifically to regulate allocation of natural resources only really goes back to Henry George, which I guess is a bit younger than California's misuse of water. Regardless, we're still about a century behind economists in knowing exactly what to do about this problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Of course, we can't implement the obvious and economically rational solution: let the water market operate freely, rather than having the government dictate prices, impose rationing, encourage neighbors to rat out putative "water wasters" and so on. Long live central planning!

<comment><USER20> Yay! Let the rich be the only ones who can afford water!

<comment><USER19> Yay! Let the rich be the only ones who can afford computers! Shoes! Books! Potting soil! Clothing! Housing! Cars!

The list of horrors that the free market visits upon the non-rich is truly shocking. After all, by your logic all non-regulated goods must be affordable only by the rich.

The level of economic ignorance in this thread is stupefying.

<comment><USER20> Those things are not in short supply. The level of economic ignorance in your comment is stupefying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 3/4 of the planet is Water. If the cost of water reaches the cost of desalination, then it will become cost effective to desalinate.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is not, strictly speaking, a set of restrictions "on water use by farmers", its a restriction on some "senior" (pre-1914) water-rights holders, with more expected; many (but not all) of the rights-holders are farmers, but some are, e.g., municipal districts, like the East Contra Costa Water District, whose use has also been curtailed.

</comment><comment><USER23> Great! A book I recommend to explain how thoroughly screwed up water policy in the West is Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner. Water policy has been run largely as corporate welfare for large agricultural growers at the expense of taxpayers and the environment.

</comment><comment><USER24> So I'm hearing a lot of misinformation here in these comments. I recently attended a talk [1] by the Chair of the CA water board (Felicia Marcus) and it was very illuminating.

!!! WATCH THIS VIDEO LINKED AT THE END !!!. It was for MIT club of NorCal and is like 2 hours, so its far more technical/deep and BALANCED than anything you'll find on CNN/nytimes/etc.

I'll try to summarize some of her points here that I think would be useful and relevant, but really you should watch her speak in that link.

1) We talk about 80% going to agriculture, as if there some single reservoir that we all drink out of. Everyone gets their water from different sources, and they're all suitable for different uses. SF, for example, has an exclusive license to Hetch Hetchy water source. Agriculture is never going to see that and doesn't affect us.

2) There are rural parts of CA that have no water coming out of the tap. She said that was her #1 priority right now.

3) We need lots of water to feed the nation. CA is one of 5 Mediterranean climates in the world, and that makes it suitable to grow all kinds of stuff that doesn't grow anywhere else. 2% GDP is irrelevant because you die without food.

4) As a culture we don't have a connection to agriculture, and it is causing drifts on both sides. The farmers are pointing fingers at urban areas, and vice versa.

5) We have less a rain problem and more a storage problem. 1900-2000 was unusually wet for CA and so we didn't build enough storage for the dry years. Groundwater is actually the most environmentally friendly storage and we get something like 40% normally of our water from it, and 60% now (I think?)

6) We don't have a market planned economy. You can't tell farmers what to grow. There is no 5 year plan -- this isn't china.

7) The state is doing a lot of things to combat these issues all simultaneously. The issue is extremely complex and multi-pronged. You'd likely be impressed with all the projects under way.

8) Ground water rights can be changed at a local county level very quickly. They have a huge amount of power and need to be first to do so. It's a bit of a mexican stand off between them, but this is where culture and local advocacy can make a difference. Santa Cruz has done really well with this, and I think San Diego as well.

9) CA does have the power to come down on people/counties/companies that they view as using excessive resources... it's built into the CA constitution. All they need to do is threaten and people change. They've done that several times.

10) We say oh, my shower is like 1% of the problem. Getting water at a restaurant is 0.5% of the problem. It's still water, waste is waste, and we need everything we can get.

11) We don't reuse/capture water efficiently or at all. Especially floods. To combat this we need lot of small efficient that add up. Capturing storm water is one example. Recycling waste water is another, and there's an additional 10% that can be gained through forrest management in the sierras better directing the melting snow run off (!).

12) CA is seeing the mistakes of San Paulo and Australia and trying not to repeat them. They're collaborating world-wide on these issues... lots of Israeli tech is making its way to desalination. Smart people are being resourceful and not isolationist about this.

WATCH THIS: [1] [http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/mitcnc/videos/31839-califo...](http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/mitcnc/videos/31839-california- water-2015-felicia-marcus-chair-california-water-resources-control-board)

<comment><USER25> > CA is one of 5 Mediterranean climates in the world, and that makes it > suitable to grow all kinds of stuff that doesn't grow anywhere else. 2% GDP > is irrelevant because you die without food.

You can live perfectly fine without Mediterranean food and if California stopped growing water-intensive crops it would cause a shortage of those crops, not a shortage of food.

<comment><USER24> That's a non balanced argument. Lots of stuff that grows only in such a climate is way less resource intensive than other stuff being grown that could be moved. For example cattle are far more water intense than even almonds (which are water intensive) yet have no requirement to be in CA. Rice similarly. Plus diversity of food is not only healthy, but increases quality of life.

<comment><USER25> I don't think that anything you wrote here makes sense as a response to my comment. Less resource intensive crops grow here, great. If they are cost effective then we should continue to grow them, if they are not cost effective then clearly they are not "way less resource intensive". The notion that we should maintain water-intensive agriculture because "you die without food" has nothing to do with reality. There is plenty of food and we could grow far more if we wanted to.

We are talking about luxury items. If you want crops that only grow in Mediterranean areas, great, so do I. We enjoy our luxuries, but we should not subsidize the unsustainable production of luxuries, which is what we are doing by giving them water at far bellow market rates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> One solution is technology. Trap evaporated water and recycle it. Invest in high performance hydroponics. There are so many solutions to flood farming that no one bothers to invest in because the water is essentially free to them.

<comment><USER27> This has been slowly building to this crisis since the 70s at least. California hasn't done anything of value to curtail the crisis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The company I work actually works on a project to help with the whole water right issue in the west.

Watersage.com

<comment><USER28> Also would like to say I'm not on that team, and I don't support stupid silverlight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What a nightmare. Makes me glad I live on the east coast.

<comment><USER30> But hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, humidity, and mosquitos.

<comment><USER31> Most of the east coast doesn't suffer under a meaningful hurricane threat. For example, the average 'hurricane' that has hit Virginia in the last 40 years, had 40 to 70 mph winds.

Earthquakes of any consequence are extremely rare on the east coast (basically non-existent).

Most of California's population centers are humid in fact. Los Angeles averages around 71% daily humidity; San Diego is 70%; San Francisco is 74% (among the highest in the US). By comparison Washington DC averages 64%; Pittsburgh averages 68%; NYC averages 63%. And for contrast, Denver averages 52% daily humidity, and Vegas is 30%.

<comment><USER32> You will perceive LA humidity as much lower as DC humidity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Unfortunately this does nothing to address groundwater depletion; it's just about how much water people are allowed to draw from rivers. With groundwater we have a dollar auction / arms race where the people with the deepest wells get the water, which is a terrible way to allocate water. If you want the system of private wells that sustain rural communities to keep functioning you have to restrict wells.

</comment><comment><USER34> Unfortunately for farmers, urban dwellers far outnumber them. Of course farmers need to devise more efficient ways to water their crops, but I think it's strange urban dwellers don't understand the inelasticity of water for farming.

At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it means not planting x acres that year.

Without water, locavores will have to become televores. Calif produces food for the whole nation. So while as a percentage of economic output farming is relatively small, as a percentage of food production it's high and thus critical to maintain viability.

The Japanese expend enormous resources on keeping their rice farmers viable in the face of cheaper alternatives, but, in some ways they have a point. Without your farmers you starve.

Yes, farmers should try to use water more efficiently and the gov should encourage that adoption via stick and carrot, but vilifying farmers is not the way to go.

And, this should have been started years ago. Not just now. Surprise, your water is cut, sorry for not preparing you for this via policy!

<comment><USER12> You simply don't understand the scale of the water we use.

> _At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it > means not planting x acres that year._

Urban direct water usage (ie., showers, watering lawns, flushing the toilet, etc) only accounts for 4% of the State water budget. FOUR PERCENT. [0] Cutting your shower from 15 mins to 5 is utterly meaningless compared to agricultural use.

[0] PDF warning: [http://pacinst.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft...](http://pacinst.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf)

<comment><USER35> Parent's point is simply that in the home you can drastically cut water usage without it affecting your life much, but in farming the consequences are large.

<comment><USER12> Of course they're large, because they use a lot of water. That's the whole point.

Cutting residential usage is comparatively easy because _we don 't actually use that much water at home._ See the study I linked above if you don't believe me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Passport Index – World's passports in one place - aps-sids http://www.passportindex.org/index.php <comment><AUTHOR> I think there's something relevant going on with search optimization, or if you prefer, marketing and advertising. A Wikipedia user who is somewhat active just now is using mentions of the website to boost the references to a particular consulting firm. This sort of activity is not much beloved by many habitues of Wikipedia, as you can see in the essay [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPA)

Here I'll leave it to others whether this is smart and laudable or sneaky and regrettable. Perhaps it's normal and unremarkable, but I find it interesting. It is only a guess on my part that this is intentional and coordinated.

</comment><comment><USER2> Does someone know where the database used to rank the countries? For example, I'd like to know the diff between France and US/UK.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't say exactly where the data comes from but:

"Passports are ranked based on their Visa Free Score. The higher the Visa Free Score, the better the Passport Power Rank."

Edit: I presume this is the number of countries which a holder of a certain passport can visit without needing a visa.

<comment><USER4> I think it would be more interesting to see this ranking weighted by the "desirability" or size of the countries you can visit, or some other useful metric. If I can visit 177 countries, but those 177 are "all of the countries except the ones in the EU" my passport might have far and away the highest power rank, but I certainly wouldn't want it.

In this case, the power ranking might involve some sort of Google search type of algorithm, where the "desirability" of the country is weighted by how many countries _its_ passport holders can visit (we're assuming that the countries enter these sorts of visitation agreements based on political stability, trade agreements, tourism motivations, etc)

In addition, you'd probably want to factor in a more detailed breakdown of visa restrictions, difficulties to obtain visas to various countries, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Extracting Square Roots with pencil and paper - <AUTHOR> http://www.qnet.fi/abehr/Achim/Calculators_SquareRoots.html

<comment><USER2> I am curious to know if they teach this in the US. I was taught this method as a 6 or 7 yr old in school (India).

<comment><USER3> If all children in India are typically being taught square roots by hand at age 6 or 7 with the fundamentals of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division already mastered in previous life (3-5 yrs of age), then all of the "laggards" (England, USA, Japan, EU) are definitely pretty well screwed.</comment></comment>


Navy Tests New Laser Weapon - <AUTHOR> http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2011/04/navy-tests-new-laser-weapon.html

<comment><AUTHOR> "I sure would like to set those people on fire over there. If only I had some way to throw flame on them." --George Carlin.</comment>


Brass and lead toxicity in midrange espresso machines - <AUTHOR> http://coffeegeek.com/forums/espresso/machines/728315?Page=1 <comment><USER2> One thing I noticed was that the guy who tested the shots from a Silvia was very proud of his scientific rigor, but never bothered to test (or at least he didn't mention it) whether there was lead in the water he put into the machine to begin with. Which for me renders his results meaningless.

<comment><USER3> Disclaimer: I am not a subject matter expert. But I would like to point out that the collection section begins with: "With spring water in the machine". One would presume the "spring water" means lead-free as it has not been subjected to lead piping.

I, too, am a bit suspicious as the numbers seems to vary a lot and, with the exception of first 24h collection, the lead-content decreases while the time of exposure increases. But I wouldn't call the results meaningless.

<comment><USER4> > _One would presume the "spring water" means lead-free as it has not been > subjected to lead piping._

You would presume. Still, the whole analysis now hinges on that one thing - what really was in that "spring water". Maybe some lead got in there in some way they didn't expect. Or maybe they're just lying and that spring water was really tap water. Or maybe it really was lead-free. Point is, this is a core thing that should've been tested, and not doing so implies either malice or laziness, neither of which instill confidence in the research.

<comment><USER5> Hanlon's razor applies here.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

\-- [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)

<comment><USER6> Hanlon's razor would only apply if the person doing the test was being accused of deliberately ignoring the issue of initial water quality for malicious purposes. Besides that, it is a simple, judgement-free fact that if you are measuring how much a device changes something, you have to compare the output to the input, independently of any hypotheses about how the input got to be the way it is.

<comment><USER5> Hanlon's Razor applies because the GP literally accused the person of malice. Direct quote:

> Point is, this is a core thing that should've been tested, and not doing so > implies either malice or laziness...

<comment><USER7> he literally accused the person of either malice or laziness, not of malice. The either is pretty important.

<comment><USER5> He's accusing him of malice or he's accusing him of laziness. Hanlon's razor applies to the former and not the latter. You're splitting hairs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment also published some results from their research on lead migrating from espresso machines into the used water ([http://mobil.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/freisetzung-von-blei-aus- kaf...](http://mobil.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/freisetzung-von-blei-aus-kaffee-und- espressomaschinen.pdf) and [http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/fragen_und_antworten_zur_freisetzu...](http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/fragen_und_antworten_zur_freisetzung_von_blei_aus_kaffee__und_espressomaschinen-188539.html)). Based on that, there is a huge thread in a German coffee board ([https://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/bfr-studie-zu-blei-in- sie...](https://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/bfr-studie-zu-blei-in-siebtraegern- nach-entkalkung.77463/)) where you can find several test results for different machines.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't have much to add to the discussion about coffee machines. I just want to say, that Britta water filters (and potentially those of other brands) leak silver ions into the filtered water. This is to reduce the green algae in the container.

But I would guess, it also changes the microbiome in the human gut. I would love to see some research regarding this, because I stopped drinking water from the water filter when I was really depressed. My depression faded and there might me a causal link or not, I don't know.

<comment> castle-bravo There might be something to that. IIRC, intestinal flora synthesize serotonin [0].

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4393509/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4393509/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another good set of studies to compare against are those showing leaching of lead from crystal decanters with hard liquor. Where the amount of lead leached may be gargantuan initially, the level leached out shrinks over time until it reaches a certain low threshold, which at least one study showed was possibly due to a kind of protecting coating developing over the crystal.

If the author found that water shots had a high concentration of lead, it could be that this level would taper off over time, or even that some other contaminant was at play. It could also be the lab gave back inaccurate results. And even with high concentrations of lead, it's possible that interactions with the content of the espresso could reduce the effect on the consumer. A study of actual concentrations of levels of lead in the blood of the espresso drinker should be evaluated.

</comment><comment><USER11> I appreciated this simple overview: [https://www.seattlecoffeegear.com/blog/2011/02/04/keeping- yo...](https://www.seattlecoffeegear.com/blog/2011/02/04/keeping-you-and-your- machine-healthy/)

<comment><USER12> That overview says plated boilers are safe. Yet apparently they are not according to the forum post above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So much for the Silvia I had been planning to get. Relatedly, I've been having trouble finding an under the counter water filtration system which does not involve putting the water into extensive contact with plastic. Maybe there just aren't enough people concerned about such things in order to affect the market. On the other hand, in-demand, easy & low cost to implement features such as built in PIDs have not made their way into mid-level machines as standard features, so maybe (baseless speculation incoming:) competing brands have an informal entente to add in improvements no faster than is absolutely necessary.

<comment><USER14> I'd love an all glass filter system to replace my plastic one now.

One concern is... what difference would that make in the pre-filter housing if the water goes through plastic pipes anyways to get to you?

<comment><USER13> One can't ever expect the filtration to be perfect, not to mention any contact that happens "downstream".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would be interesting to see the results from NSF and ROHS-approved home machines from manufacturers like Nuova Simonelli, La Marzocco, and Astra.

I also wonder how effective water scale deposits on the boiler are at mitigating lead - doing tests on new-ish machines without much scale buildup could be a factor in these results.

Stainless is becoming more of a popular alternative to brass and copper, but isn't as effective of a thermal conductor and is not as malleable. For steam boilers and heat exchanger systems, being able to expand and deform under high pressure is a desirable feature.

<comment><USER16> _For steam boilers and heat exchanger systems, being able to expand and deform under high pressure is a desirable feature._

I'm curious, why? Presumably it's more than just the fact that deformation allows for less catastrophic overpressure failure?

<comment><USER15> Correct, there is a lower chance of an explosion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have a Saeco Aroma which according to its specs is all stainless steel. Looks like that one is ok.

<comment><USER18> It may be an all-stainless chassis, but in a $250 dollar machine, my guess is you're getting a brass boiler.

Edit: nope, you're right. SS boiler apparently

<comment><USER19> A stainless boiler is just 2 stainless steel cups held togheter by a clamp, it shouldn't affect the price much, my 120€ delonghi has one.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I was pretty much assuming that all the cheap machines would use standard small diameter copper plumbing rather than pay for all stainless fittings all the way through (which would be somewhat specialized from a plumbing perspective), so it wouldn't really matter much whether the boiler itself was or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I own the Gaggia Classic, and as far as I know it uses aluminum or stainless steel (depending on the year) for the boiler. It's a semi-automatic machine, and personally I love it. Barista grade portafilter, makes a very good espresso. I replaced the steam wand with the Rancilio Silvia wand for better steam action; it's a simple five minute job and worth doing if you go with this machine.

</comment><comment><USER21> This report looks to have examined the same question in the EU and seems less alarmed:

[https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2015/09/978-87-93352-...](https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2015/09/978-87-93352-66-7.pdf)

<comment><USER22> The report monitored "ready-to-drink espresso coffee from 8 cafes and gas stations... purchased in the Copenhagen area."

The OP's forum is talking about particular (older) mid-range personal espresso machines which use brass boilers, like the Silvia V3: [https://www.thecoffeebrewers.com/rasihoofesan1.html](https://www.thecoffeebrewers.com/rasihoofesan1.html) Those are not generally found in higher-end-coffee-selling cafes.

The report did note that one of the espresso machines tested in Copenhagen put out levels of lead greater than what was considered disconcerting in the OP's forum's calculations: 65ng/ml vs the 20-40ng/ml found in Rob's testings.

But even so, they still conclude that such levels are not a particular health risk in their mind. From the report:

> "The concentration in ready to drink espresso from cafes was similar to the > homebrewed coffee in all but one sample, which had a concentration of 65 > ng/ml. Even if a consumer has a daily cup of coffee from this cafe it will > not be of health concern. The correlation between tin and lead described > earlier indicate that the source of the high value could be a lead > containing welding in the espresso machine."

<comment><USER23> There is no safe amount of lead.

<comment><USER24> There are acceptable amounts.

<comment><USER23> "No amount of lead is safe."

[https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/lead/index.cf...](https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/lead/index.cfm)

<comment><USER25> I had no idea lead was so bad for you. It's terrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wonder how this applies to all the instant coffee vending machines around South Korea and Japan.

The ones within subways and outside bus stations feel the most suspect.

And some of those bus drivers and maintenance workers drink from those 10x/day.

</comment><comment><USER27> The list mentioned in the last posted comment would be helpful to see, if anybody has it available.

</comment><comment><USER28> Link is from 2006.

</comment><comment><USER29> Site unaccessible from VPN. Guise I promise I'm not a spammer I just value my privacy :'(</comment>


Scientists now thing being overweight can protect your health - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/550527/obesity-paradox-scientists-now-think-that-being-overweight-is-sometimes-good-for-your-health/ <comment><USER2> It is not strange, we slightly heavier persons have much more energy for the body to fight of external problems like virii and bacteria, besides I have seen a lot of "fit" people who are heavier and a lot of ill ones who are thin. thin == fit has more to do with fashion and culture than with health. Many people don't realize that all of us are the decendents of the wealthy and fat in the middle ages.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree - I think the biggest problem with the article is that it frames this as a "paradox." Based on theory and what's been observed, there is no paradox - it's a simple fact that the common weight-health paradigm is a myth.</comment></comment>


Won't Fix: WPA2/Enterprise Support for Chromecast - <AUTHOR> https://code.google.com/p/google-cast-sdk/issues/detail?id=326#makechanges

<comment><AUTHOR> Lots of colleges and universities use WPA2/Enterprise. I can imagine incoming freshmen being rather disappointed when their chromecasts don't work.

But on a deeper level, it seems kind of absurd to make it a "Won't Fix."</comment>


Email your notes into OneNote with me[at]onenote.com (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.office.com/2014/03/17/email-your-notes-into-onenote-with-meonenote-com/

<comment><USER2> Microsoft released a lot of cool stuff for OneNote starting around a year ago. The REST API they have is pretty neat, I built a project with it for a hackathon. (shameless plug: [http://notegram.me](http://notegram.me) )</comment>


On Hiring: Trial Week - Yay or Nay? - <AUTHOR> http://fredwu.me/post/65426660472/on-hiring-trial-week-yay-or-nay <comment><USER2> "Trial week" sounds like a pretty blatant attempt to keep the workforce young and dumb.

If you have other things going on in life (home, family), you're not going to roll the dice of getting canned in a week. And burning vacation time at a previous employer is (by my standard) an ethical issue to me. When I leave a gig, I generally give sufficient notice so that my duties can be transitioned in an orderly way. Obviously there are exception (ie. you give notice and get escorted out by company policy)

If your company need to do something like this, do it the Zappos way. Bring someone on and offer a check to leave after a certain period.

<comment><USER3> I would suggest the contrary.

As an employed person, I have some resistance to giving up a reasonable job to enter into a permanent contract that has potential but that may not suit me as much.

A trial week gives me, as a mature employee, an equal and fair chance to decide whether or not it's a good idea give up what I already have (just as the company gets to decide whether I am a good risk at my larger-than-novice pay rate).

I approve of the idea that companies and employees should mutually agree a probation period that is satisfactory to both - it seems to me that a one week period at first is a good idea.

I would be willing to give up a week of vacation time for this opportunity (if I thought it had a good chance of resulting in a positive outcome). If I was worried about the loss of vacation, I would explain this and ask the new employer to consider additional vacation - the result of this discussion would also be important in my consideration.

<comment><USER4> What if it doesn't work out? You show up to work the following Monday and ask for another week off to go check out another place?

<comment><USER3> OK, personally what would I do in that hypothetical situation?

Note that I would only take the trial week if I thought there was a good chance of it being a mutual match.

If it didn't work out despite that, then I would consider it a good investment of my time. Compared to starting a permanent contract and it not working out, it's a _great_ outcome.

If I had several opportunities at that level of significance, then I would have already considered whether resignation from my existing job was an option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My comment from the blog:

 _I 've seen several variations of the "trial week" in effect on a smaller scale. In the cases I'm aware of, the timeframe was drastically reduced to a weekend or a single workday. Candidates were given a realistic problem to solve and a set amount of time to solve it. Most implementation details were left out beyond general scope and what constituted completion. If someone was truly interested in being hired for the company, they'd jump at the chance. Beyond this, I've also been in situations where the candidates were paid for their time, even on weekends. It's an incentive that the company is also investing themselves in the candidate. The company is essentially saying "We're interested enough in hiring you to pay you for your time." This bodes well with both parties in my experience._

</comment><comment><USER6> So, I wonder what kind of people are getting hired by "interview" games? Are these interviewing techniques bringing in high-caliber people? Or are they bringing in the highest-caliber people they can bring in. Are you hiring people from well-established firms, or hiring people from companies that are just that much farther off.

I guess what I'm wondering is are the people applying doing so because of the opportunity to work on interesting challenges, or are they just people who have a worse job and really have nothing to lose by applying. I look at these week long games and wonder what incentive is there for someone in my position to apply?

It's useless to talk about numbers unless you also talk about results. And hiring 50% or 75% of people that jump through hoops is a useless number. If those same people are just people coming out from college or jumping from another startup, is the number really impressive?

My thought is no. The additional games seem more like over-compensation for a deficiency.

</comment><comment><USER7> My comment from the blog:

Additional point: the candidate may not be able to work (paid) at another company for a week without breaking part of their contract, such as a "devotion" clause.

(For example, something like a _" the Employee must not, without the Company's prior written consent, engage in any other employment or business activity"_ line in the contract.)

<comment><USER8> Do such contract stipulations ever actually hold up court or have been challenged?

<comment><USER4> Do you really want to hire someone who cares so little for agreements they sign in good faith?

<comment><USER9> You can't sign something unethical and immoral in good faith, by definition. You need a meeting of the minds on an equal playing field.

<comment><USER4> > something unethical and immoral

That sir, is your opinion and has no bearing on the legal definition of good faith.

There is nothing inherently evil about exclusive employment agreements for full time employees and is fair to both parties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a person currently interviewing with companies (student, graduating, etc.), I definitely wouldn't be able to commit to a week long trial process, even if paid, in the next 6-8 months. (Unless over Christmas/New Years; even the week long Spring break is nearly 6 months out.) I'm hoping (fingers crossed, etc.) that I'll have a job lined up in the next two months; I don't want to be looking for a job in 6-8.

Asking someone to drop everything for a week (particularly with what is likely a month of notice, if that, given how long hiring processes seem to take) seems ridiculously presumptuous about what people's motivations/etc. are. I'd imagine that many good candidates also just have other things in their life: such as responsibilities related to children. I know that I have a hard time re-arranging my responsibilities (to my grad classes, both part time jobs with very flexible hours, and to a lesser degree to extracurricular organizations) so that I'm free to spend a day or so travelling for a day long interview with a month's notice: and I'm a student with (supposedly) all the free time in the world and a much more flexible schedule. I don't see where working professionals with (supposedly) more rigid schedules and more obligations (work, sure, but also family or any other obligations in their lives) would find the time to spend a full week interviewing (assuming the weekend is spent travelling, so that the full work week is available).

</comment><comment><USER11> After thinking it over, I don't really have a problem with a trial period. All employment agreements I've seen allow for a 3 month trial period already.

The only stipulation I'd add is that salary and benefits already be finalized. Someone taking a week away from their current job, or quitting it outright, has weakened their negotiation position so the paper work had better be done before the trial week starts.

Also I don't think too many companies would go down thsi trial road.... By definition if you are doing a 1 week trial period then you are excluding the top 5-10% of people from your potential set of hires as they'd never put up with this, but the companies that do this like Weebly don't need to hire the top 5-10% of hackers.

Weebly is probably content with hiring in the top 40% and therefore the system works for them.

</comment><comment><USER12> The best interiew process I ever went through was pretty much like this. Of course they first check the CV, then a regular interview, and when that went well, I got a programming assignment. Something very simple, but in a framework I wasn't familiar with. Had about a week to do it in my own time, could contact them with questions, and at the end, I presented my code to the devs, who asked questions. Afterwards, the devs vote by email.

I haven't heard of a better way to do it yet.

<comment><USER13> I like this. Being able to do it in your own time relieves the pressure of being put on the spot and working in a foreign environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> personally, i can see why people want this, but as an engineer i'd only do it if i was either pretty desperate (like, not having a job), or if there was a chance to learn something pretty cool. if the trial week were as interesting as, say, the matasano crypto challenge, then i'd do it even if i wasn't looking for a job. but i guess making something like that is difficult.

now i suspect most companies would like candidates who think that working there is "pretty cool" in itself. but let's be honest - jobs aren't like that. they have good bits and bad bits. and picking out just the good bits for a week, for someone who doesn't understand the context, is hard.

so it seems to me that there's a disadvantage to the company - they are discouraging people who are good enough to not be desperate and attract people who think that a typical job (sorry, but most are, by definition) is "pretty cool".

or maybe they just get younger, less cynical employees ;o)

<comment><USER15> Yeah I've considered doing this a bunch of times but my biggest problem is coming up with small chunks of work that require little-to-no domain knowledge and can be done in a day/weekend/week.

We've switched to having candidates do two take home problems that are derived from actual problems we faced and it's worked very well. It cuts down on the number of bad candidates that get to the office and waste an hour of time and it gives a chance to candidates who are good coders but bad whiteboarders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Trial week, only if the company trials the payroll into my bank account for that week as well. Otherwise it would be illegal to work less than minimum wage in many countries unless registered charity.

Also ironicly for many who are unemployed - such an arrangement would legaly stop there benifits and in short place them into a dangerous position.

Fact is you already get a trial period - it is called probabtion period and with that it works both ways for early termination. Call it a cooling of period. This is how the legal system has such an arrangement to accomodate such setups and for a company to skip all that at the expense of the employee is moraly wrong.

</comment><comment><USER9> Its an interesting article. I would have liked "66% Hire Rate Suggests Deeper Hiring Issue" to have been further explored before conclusions were drawn.

The article assumption was the amazing 1/3 failure rate must have been due to their highly unusual hiring practices. But when you hear hooves, think horses not zebras unless you've ruled out horses, which hasn't been done. Most hiring failures are management failures, or culture problems on either or both side, or moral/ethical problems, or simple logistics ...

</comment><comment><USER17> My second and third job in IT had a trial period of 6 months, which is quite common here in Sweden.

Some people get to skip this depending on the contract they sign but I'm a high school drop out so I believe that's why I've always had to prove myself.

I find it perfectly acceptable to make sure that an employee knows what they're doing and get feedback from the whole team before 6 months are over.

<comment><USER12> In Netherland, the standard trial period is a month, during which you can be fired at any time for anything. I'm not sure it's legal to extend that trial period, but after that, people usually get a half-year contract, which won't get extended if it turns out they suck during that half year. There's a strict limit to how many temporary contracts you can get. Eventually, the employer has to offer a permanent contract. You can't let the employee live with that kind of uncertainty indefinitely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you read the comments in the post, the company employees are saying that the majority of the people in trial week are from out of the area. This changes the story quite a bit.

If I were to offer you a position in a different city, you'd probably want to check out the city first. I offer to pay for your trip and I'll even put you up for a week, and you can even come work with us for a week, and I'll pay you for that too. Sounds great, or at least better than not being paid.

The risk in this situation isn't just the risk of hiring a new employee being mitigated by the company. It's also the risk of relocating to a new city, combined with taking a new job with a new company, being mitigated by the job seeker. When the company takes away much of that risk by paying for the trip, putting up the worker, and paying for the work being done during that trip, it takes away much of the risk for the job seeker.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think there are many upsides:

\- The candidate gets to know the company better.

\- The company gets to know the candidate better.

\- You can check for fit as well as technical competency.

Some of the downsides people raise make less sense:

\- Yes it's a week of vacation lost, but you can get it back if you switch companies and you're paid for your time.

\- Yes, it's expensive, but it's cheaper than a bad hire.

\- It's entirely voluntary, there's no exploitation.

There's only two downsides in my mind: You won't be able to pry any superstars away with this, and sometimes a week isn't enough. The solution is to go further in the direction that this company is going - offers lots of real-work internships to college students. You need to identify the best while they're still sophomores and juniors. It's usually too tough to get them after they're seniors, and they're usually too happy in their jobs to take a week off to work somewhere else.

<comment><USER9> "There's only two downsides in my mind: You won't be able to pry any superstars away with this"

There is an unexplored dimension to this situation. If I understand the situation correctly, this is hiring at weebly. My impression is they're a 50 or so employee webhoster with an integrated custom CMS and a slick UI. They seem to be in maintain/upgrade mode rather than invent a product mode. They don't want or need a superstar. This is not a binary world, claiming they don't want or need a superstar does NOT imply I think they're dirtbags or losers, solely implying average people doing an average job at an average company doing very average and traditional business. Anyone vaguely near the median skill level would be a perfect fit and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I agree that their unusual hiring plan would be a horrible idea for a startup doing something new or challenging where they need high end skills. If they were developing their platform in, say, '96 they would have needed a superstar for the development phase. In 2013 during maintenance of an existing product, its the equivalent of stamping out license plates.

Filtering out "super stars" or "rock stars" might be a perfectly valid design goal of a hiring process where you don't want or need super stars. What would a "super star" do at a webhost in 2013 other than get really bored? The business model or UI or internal processes might be very innovative; that doesn't mean every job there is currently innovative. "Oh great, I get to maintain an existing CRUD app for the customer database, how cutting edge"

<comment><USER19> You're correct here. Superstars are expensive, and need certain types of roles to stay. If you don't have that offer, it's better to not design recruiting strategies around that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Isn't most employment _at-will_ essentially making it a "trial" of undetermined length?

<comment><USER7> In the US, in some places, yes.

The post's author is Australian, and is writing from that perspective. We have minimum legal notice periods from both sides (a week for the first year, evenutally going up to four weeks): [http://www.fairwork.gov.au/TERMINATION/NOTICE- PERIODS/Pages/...](http://www.fairwork.gov.au/TERMINATION/NOTICE- PERIODS/Pages/default.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> _But hold on, didn't I mention one week is not enough for a candidate to be productive and effective? Yes! And that's why most places have a three-month probation._

If I had to change jobs, I'd be MUCH more comfortable taking a week's vacation, doing a "trial" week, and then making a decision than I would making the decision and then being subjected to a three-month probationary period.

The trial weeks let's both parties dip their toes in the water. I think for many employees, it reduces their risk quite a bit. If it doesn't work out, you're out a week's vacation. If you're three month probation doesn't work out, you're out of a job altogether.

<comment><USER22> Probation in the article's context is mostly an artifact of Australia's Fair Work Act and not being an at-will employment country.

For the probationary period the employer can fire you for almost any reason (like in the US) but afterwards there's a procedure involved where the employer has to show cause and give the employee a chance to rectify the issues before dismissal.

It's not like a trial week that last 3 months, it's more regular employment but you receive tenure (or a sort) after 3 months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> As it is with every market out there, it is a matter of equilibrium between buyers and sellers.

Sure you can find enough people to do a trial week if you are a poster child of startups. Good luck if you are anything less than that.

Yay for Tesla Inc.; Nay for vowelless.ly

<comment><USER7> For the moment, yes; it's an employees' market right now.

What I hate to think about is what happen when the pendulum starts swinging back. My partner is in print design, and most companies seem to put candidates through onerous application procedures _because they can_.

<comment><USER9> If you'd like to experience the future, today, simply look for a job outside SV, NYC, or maybe Austin.

This is part of why the fizzbuzz test sounds so funny away from the coasts. If the supply-demand dynamic is such that you "have to" interview any warm body that applies, you need a fizzbuzz test. If the supply-demand dynamic is such that the entire workforce is ridiculously overeducated and overexperienced for the job, you only need fizzbuzz if you're trying to bottom feed (only offering $12/hr 1099 no benefits, that kind of thing)

<comment><USER24> I wish I had more than one upvote for this. As somebody in Dallas my job searches over the past five years have been a hell of arbitrary, narrow requirements lists and lack of interest in anything I have done that is not professional work.

To make things worse, I can't get SV companies to give me the time of day. They all seem to be focused on poaching "rock stars" from each other and operating under the arrogant assumption[1] that anyone worth a damn has already moved there because, duh, everyone wants to be here.

[1] An assumption I have seen voiced here and elsewhere, and can probably dig up the references if I try hard enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I would suspect that the main people interested would be the desperate ones - this isn't going to attract the best & brightest, who know what they're about and don't need to waste their time on something like this.

So in short, nay.

</comment><comment><USER18> If they are hiring 66% of people that go through "trial week", it appears as if the decision to hire was already fairly well established before the candidate had to endure trial week. No company would be bragging about a 66% hire rate on all candidates, as that would show you are probably not very selective at all (assuming the applicants represent the industry as a whole).

They don't provide data as to how many interviews they do before the invite, or what percentage of candidates are invited to participate in trial week. I'd imagine that, if this company is truly selective, the percentage of candidates invited to trial week is rather low - well below 50%, probably closer to 10%.

If they are hiring 66% of the candidates that make it through trial week, and only 5% of candidates are rejecting the opportunity for a trial week, then how much value does the trial week actually add? One could argue that the cost of wasting an entire week with the 34% of candidates that you aren't going to hire is substantial (while most here could argue that you could end up getting some great ideas on the process out of that candidate even if you don't hire him/her).

And who is to say that the 34% wouldn't have worked out in the long run? They provide an anecdote about a candidate that didn't handle interview pressure well but did great during trial week. Couldn't at least some percentage of the 34% that are rejected perhaps feel that same pressure in trial week, and could do well when the guise of an audition is no longer present?

But if you have a 66% positive rate on trial week, it seems the main purpose it serves is to just verify what you already know - that you want to hire this person. But it also serves, perhaps, a more important purpose as well.

What I think is the true secret sauce here is the concept related to the willingness of candidates to participate in the process. One of the hiring criteria is a clear interest in the company and a belief in the product. If someone is willing to jump through this kind of hoop at the chance to work for this company, they are either very interested in the company or desperate for any job. That 5% that reject the trial week can be deemed not a fit, due to their unwillingness to jump through this hoop.

</comment><comment><USER26> What about the same 'trial' concept, except limit it to possibly 2 days, like a Friday and a Saturday. Assuming the company is small, it might even be possible to do Saturday/Sunday. I'd also let the interviewee choose which weekend is best for him/her.

I like the idea of a trial since I do believe interviews are a limited window of analysis, but I agree with Fred's points–asking anyone with a current job to take a week off is not reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER27> The problem is not even that top people will not bother. The problem is that other companies hiring the same person will have a week on you.

If your candidate has any value to your competition you just left him or her on the market for additional 1 week plus how many weeks it takes to schedule yours.</comment>


Google Home vs. Amazon Echo: A Face-Off of Smart Speakers - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/technology/personaltech/google-home-vs-amazon-echo-a-face-off-of-smart-speakers.html <comment><USER2> I would love an open hardware alternative. Decent quality speakers, a microphone array, high quality case that you can put in your living room. We already have some open source platforms ([1],[2],[3]), but no good hardware to put it in.

I love these products and I can see myself using it daily, but I don't want to be dragged into Google's or Amazon's walled gardens.

[1] [http://jasperproject.github.io/documentation/hardware/](http://jasperproject.github.io/documentation/hardware/) [2] [http://sirius.clarity-lab.org/sirius/](http://sirius.clarity- lab.org/sirius/) [3] [https://mycroft.ai/](https://mycroft.ai/)</comment>


The Coding Interview - <AUTHOR> http://blog.palantirtech.com/2011/10/03/the-coding-interview/ <comment><USER2> The best job application process I've been through was when the employer asked for a small program to be submitted with the CV. The program had to use their infrastructure and existing products, which gave me a quick tour of their processes, the tools they use and the quality of their existing code base. I assume that in turn, my code gave them a clear view of the way my code looks in real life, the tests, the comments, the docs etc. This was followed by a short mostly non-technical interview.

I wish more companies would do this.

<comment><USER3> Recently, I tried something similar with my interviews.

In the past, I've had lackluster success with the brain teaser, CS theory, and 'FizzBuzz' interviews. Plus, most motivated candidates had already mastered and memorized the 'Google interview secrets'. So, I wasn't getting the right people.

My goal is to recruit productive, engaged software engineers who care about the craft of software and who can learn things relatively well and are resourceful. I want collaborative team players, with passion for software, not necessarily geniuses.

So, I concocted an interview process that required new candidates to develop a small program using all of our current tools. I also gave them an existing, relatively poor code base to work with, and also asked them to recommend refactorings. I also gave them access to some of my current team members to ask questions.

It was a great process. But, here was the major problem: 75% of the candidates dropped out of the interview process instantly. I'm guessing that they had better opportunities with quicker yield.

<comment><USER2> That's really cool.

It depends on the way you look at it I think. The 75% who dropped out were probably not that interested in your company/products anyway. Sure, they might have been computer programming aces, but in the end I think this is a good filter for people who are actually with you for the mission/job as well as the money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe it is because I have been stuck working with .NET environments so much, but they seem to be focusing on stuff that is too complicated.

The basic FizzBuzz test is about the right level of complexity. It weeds out those people who cannot even do as simple loop while still giving real coders enough rope to work with to show their stuff.

To be honest, the more advanced concepts in programming can be mentored and corrected if the basics are in place. In my experience, once they pass a basic coding test, you are interviewing for culture, to determine if they are a junior or senior coder, and whether or not they know they are a junior coder and will therefore be open to improving.

<comment><USER5> This is an interesting idea: why not use FizzBuzz to show off your understanding of different paradigms?

Someone who barely scrapes out an imperative-style FizzBuzz might not be ideal. On the other hand, someone who can write FizzBuzz in functional and OOP would be better.

Even better would be someone who writes FizzBuzz with a poor order of growth, then explains _why_ the order of growth sucks. That would demonstrate an understanding of algorithmic complexity.

I wonder if anyone looks for this when hiring.

<comment><USER6> _someone who can write FizzBuzz in functional and OOP would be better._

How would you write an OOP implementation of FizzBuzz? I genuinely don't see how this would be done, short of something really contrived like fizz.Print(), buzz.print().

<comment><USER5> It would definitely be contrived. Let's see how contrived! ;)

        class FizzBuzzer():
            def __init__(self, num):
                self.mod3 = num % 3 == 0
                self.mod5 = num % 5 == 0

            def check(self):
                s = ""
                if self.mod3:
                    s += "Fizz"
                if self.mod5:
                    s += "Buzz"
                print s

        def main():
            buzzer = FizzBuzzer(n)
            buzzer.check()

Yeah, that's really contrived. Still, you display a familiarity with encapsulation, objects & their attributes/methods, etc.

<comment><USER7> Sorry to nitpick, but it fails to give "FizzBuzz" for 15 and other multiples of 3 and 5.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Asking people to write code on a whiteboard in the pressure of the interview environment doesn't seem very reflective of how they work day to day to me. Perhaps judging them on previous projects or open source work they have contributed to would be a better approach. If someone gave me a pen and a whiteboard and asked me to draw code I think I would likely say thanks but no thanks and walk out of the interview.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I'm not sure I'd walk out -- depends on how bad I wanted it I guess -- but I would point out that I tend to write marginal code first and then go back and make it pretty in a second (or sometimes third) go-round, later. It's like that funny old saying, "I apologize for the length of this letter; I didn't have time to make it shorter."

But, if they're just trying to get an idea of your abilities and critical thinking skills and coding style, it's really not that big of a deal.

<comment><USER10> That's more than likely what they're intending. They're coders too. They know what sort of code can he pushed out in 5 minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm currently preparing for my first coding interviews, using a blog post about interviewing at Google as my guide. [1] In addition to studying the subjects in the post (algorithms, data structures, discrete math), I'm taking the three public Stanford classes and writing an iOS app that I will put in my github. Any advice re this approach? My career goal is to program useful stuff people use, with smart people.

[1] [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at- goog...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-google.html)

<comment><USER2> You should find a better career goal for yourself; _program useful stuff people use, with smart people_ is about as generic as you can get.

<comment><USER12> Maybe the way you worded that is a little harsh: I think that's a fine goal but when you approach an employer you might want to put that goal in the context of the company you're interviewing with. So in effect, you want to use your career goals as an angle by which you might sell yourself to the prospective company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can't submit comments on the site. I wanted to submit: \----

Instead of coding on the whiteboard, have you ever tried setting up a work station / projector combination ? (I'd even consider dual projectors for a dual-head setup).

I think it's much more realistic to watch how a potential candidate actually "types" the solution. They may stub things out, then go back and fill it in, they may write one version from top to bottom, or they might continually copy and paste code around the place. There are a thousand possibles.

I think actually watching them type and interact with the IDE will give you a lot of understanding that watching them struggle to draw a coherent "}" on the whiteboard will not.

-Dan

</comment><comment><USER14> It depends a lot on what company actually do, but lets be honest - not so many companies out there need some tricky algo implemented. Most stuff already invented and you, as programmer, have to know when to use what, how it should work together and what is approximate complexity of two or more algos, which could be used in particular situation..

Why I am saying this... In most cases (unless someone interviewing me for position where I will be developing "nanobots to build house on Mars"), if interviewer will ask me to write actual code on real white board.. i will pass this position no matter how big or cool or both this company is.

My memory and attention have better use then memorizing particular syntax of particular language, particular code of particular sorting algorithm, etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm starting to do some job hunting for a professional programming position and I'm a bit nervous about these types of interviews. I think I have the skills, but having been a solo programmer for a long time, I'm nervous about people looking over my shoulder and watching while I try to think through a problem. It's probably more a lack of experience with these types of interviews than anything else.

As someone hiring a developer, can't the submission of previously written code provide good insight into the type of person you're interviewing, or is there concern that the code is not really theirs?

<comment><USER16> Part of the job is being able to do your job in a meeting, or with a client. You don't need to be perfect, just don't freeze.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've also found that having a laptop with you with your preferred IDE ready to go is a great idea. I suck at hand writing but type like a champ, and feel that "whiteboard" coding is more of an exercise for those who were TAs in college than someone who can show how to really code in person.

About 1/2 the time my suggestion to write live code was shot down. I do fine on the whiteboard, just hate it.</comment>


H1N1 has saved 383 lives in New Zealand - <AUTHOR> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/sep29_3/b3959?papetoc

<comment><USER2> Or maybe just that people are more careful, don't go to work or school when they feel sick etc. Or something else. Or I'd at least wait till the end of the year to make statements like that, but then again my job is not to get people's attention.</comment>


The problem with voting - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@nayafia/the-problem-with-voting-8cff39f771e8 <comment><USER2>
      Voting, in its modern form, is only as old as the Enlightenment

Define modern. (i.e. why wouldn't Athens count?)

      eligible voters, all of whom were free, male, and white

_Most_ were white, but all male citizens of age could vote, including immigrants from worldwide, and free black men.</comment>


Facebook launches a version of Messenger for young children - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/4/16725494/facebook-messenger-kids-app-launch-ios-iphone-preview <comment><USER2> It reminds me series of Silicon Valley and like Pied Pipper became chat app. It was used mostly by kids and was good place for pedophiles.

</comment><comment><USER3> Now the real question is coming as "Should Facebook, even with some sort of "Child-friendly filter", be accessible to children" ?

IMHO, the answer is a red and clear NO, especially since Internet can really easily be a wild place in which any not-prepared person can easily get lost and make bad encounters.

It's a place accessible to everyone but the risks are often overlooked and the slightest bit of maturity would be expected from someone to use a computer, let alone access Internet.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it's a bad thing by itself if children have access to the main communaction platforms to chat with their friends and communicate with their parents. However, I agree, parents should be prepared when they let their children to use the web.</comment></comment>


50 percent of people don't trust finance companies, new study finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianroberts/2018/04/06/finance-company-trust-report/#1fcdc08b7c70 <comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't trust 50% of the population to calculate a tip on a restaurant tab with a calculator for me, let alone seek any kind of financial advice from them. Shit crazy son.</comment>


Mark Zuckerberg used failed login attempts to hack user emails - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-okay-but-youve-got-to-admit-the-way-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-into-those-email-accounts-was-pretty-darn-cool-2010-3 <comment><USER2> The tone of the article is sort of being in awe that mark zuckerberg essentially had some scheme within early Facebook logs / code / database to save failed password attempt data and he just as a stroke of apparent genius decided to use those passwords to login to those peoples accounts. It's like saying he stole the janitors key ring and he tried all the keys until the door opened.. pure. Genius.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is absolutely nothing "cool" about what he did or how he did it.</comment>


Streetview takes my picture - <AUTHOR> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=320+Pioneer+Way,+Mountain+View+CA&sll=37.386911,-122.067533&sspn=0.002285,0.003798&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=320+Pioneer+Way,+Mountain+View,+Santa+Clara,+California+94041&ll=37.386819,-122.067509&spn=0.000567,0.00095&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=37.386911,-122.067533&panoid=mi5fa5lWQu7R8nxKc_F7mw&cbp=12,230.84,,3,4

<comment><AUTHOR> At first I thought, what an amazing coincidence. But actually the odds of this happening are reasonably high.

I can't quite tell who I'm talking to without seeing their faces. From the postures it looks like it might be the RethinkDBs.

Edit: No, turns out it was the Picwings.

<comment><USER2> My parents are on StreetView. It would be interesting to try to calculate the odds of a given individual being caught.

<comment><USER3> Simply put, I counted 6 people reporting this here (I am one). My attempt to estimate how many people read this: X HN daily actives, each looks at Y threads a day (random out of 30 they see), one in Z posts to the thread.

Quick check with Alexa gave me something on the order of 2 million for X, that seems really high to me, let's say X=100k (even this seems very generous). Y and Z are pretty tricky, using a gut guess of Y = 5 and Z = 10:

6 * Z / ((Y * X) / 30 ) = (6 * Z * 30) / (X * Y) = 6 * 10 * 30 / (100000 * 5) = 0.0036 = 0.36%

0.36% of the HN audience. Very back-of-the-envelope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can't beat these guys [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&...](http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rugdeveien+39+bergen&sll=59.913801,10.73882&sspn=0.000449,0.001635&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Rugdeveien+39,+5097+Bergen,+Hordaland,+Norway&t=h&ll=60.360884,5.369468&spn=0.001211,0.00247&z=19&layer=c&cbll=60.360884,5.369468&panoid=vIlVwLm8kDoxekaRJ0MwdQ&cbp=12,276.08,,0,7.25)

"Walk" east!

<comment><USER5> Why they have blurred their faces though? Or they blur all the faces on streetview?

<comment><USER6> Google has a face-blurring algorithm. Amusingly, it catches things like faces on billboards and horses!

[http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/05/14/google-blurs- horse-...](http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/05/14/google-blurs-horse-f.html)

<comment><USER7> Naturally statues get the same treatment. It seems though that his private parts don't need the privacy :)

<http://bit.ly/csIXot>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You too, huh?

[http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=38....](http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=38.906541,-77.047447&daddr=Ward+Ct+NW,+Washington,+DC+20037&hl=en&geocode=%3BCaQRBvdCQj1tFW2qUQIdollo- ylBYYbLt7e3iTH6RK3K3ioJ5w&mra=mi&mrsp=0&sz=19&sll=38.906225,-77.047693&sspn=0.001847,0.00327&g=Ward+ct.+NW,+Washington,+District+of+Columbia&ie=UTF8&ll=38.906536,-77.047446&spn=0.00081,0.00327&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.906371,-77.04791&panoid=8bLyBshiOIiRXLuyi0yrLg&cbp=11,34.26,,0,5)

Almost spooky how identifiably clear mine is. Subway totally owes me a kickback for the free advertising.

</comment><comment><USER9> They took mine too: [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&...](http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2404+Wilshire+Blvd,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90057&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=40.460237,70.400391&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=2404+Wilshire+Blvd,+Los+Angeles,+California+90057&ll=34.060294,-118.28156&spn=0.010364,0.017188&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.060377,-118.281505&panoid=X1g7UgoiqfHxO8jTQqrm2Q&cbp=12,318.32,,1,8.65)

<comment><USER10> I never knew people rode bikes in LA, interesting :D

<comment><USER9> It's mostly flat and the weather's perfect, what more do you need?

<comment><USER11> An environment where capricious and terrible drivers texting surreptitiously in gigantic body crushers are not prolific.

LA has a terrible bike culture. I learned to hate biking down there, and it's only now up in SF that I've started repairing that.

<comment><USER12> I used to bike a lot in SF. Then I realized that in less than a year I had a roommate shatter an ankle on market street and need surgery, a friend get hit by a bus and had to wear a neckbrace for months, another friend shattered a shoulder and also needed surgery, another got doored and had back problems, and I also got doored, but was fine. Though my bike was messed up. Great bike culture, but not very safe.

<comment><USER11> At least people drive smaller cars in SF. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> They caught me drinking! (I'm across from the guy with the hat) <http://bit.ly/Rz2GB>

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe there's a business opportunity here in vanity StreetView shots?

</comment><comment><USER15> I _should_ be on Street View as one went past while my wife and I were walking along from one of our first visits when she was pregnant. That was at least 10 months ago and the area we were in still isn't on Street View (rural UK). Anyone know how long it takes? :-)

<comment><USER16> I think they do multiple passes, and some passes are rejected - or the car could have been on its way somewhere else. I've seen the cars numerous times and never fail to stare dumbly at them but as far as I know none of those takes were used ..

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Funny the sidebar ad is for iRobot! Making ad dollars off PG?

<comment><USER18> I got a robot-related ad also. It's not a coincidence, Google must know that 320 Pioneer way is the HQ of Anybots and show related ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've always wondered what the great mastermind PG looks like!

<comment><USER20> If you're really that curious: <http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/137275735_6ba4ac4e5a.jpg>

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> You're the one on the left, right?

<comment><USER22> look for the shorts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> you're now © google.

</comment><comment><USER24> OMG the privacy implications of this will create a huge BUZZ!

<comment><USER24> corny I know, but was this not posted by the site's admin for fun? I just got tired of everyone going on and on about BUZZ and privacy.</comment></comment>