Top
Best
New

Posted by MaxLeiter 9/4/2025

30 minutes with a stranger(pudding.cool)
1092 points | 375 commentspage 2
NoSalt 9/4/2025|
I know this is 100% not the point of this post, but I really dug the little ASCII animations of the post. I'd love to know how they did that.
hoetmaaiers 9/5/2025|
Indeed, also the ASCII avatars look really good.
K0balt 9/4/2025||
I love this study and the presentation - first time I’ve not hated the hijacking of scrolling on a website.

But I shudder at the thought of the new AI product that this data will inspire or train.

It’s gotten to the point that I see any significant collection of data about humans as a low-key threat to humanity.

shymaple 2 days ago||
I have been talking to people online as well as in person and especially strangers. What I felt is, many only talk about work, and how they are doing well and all and it takes huge time to build trust with the person when it's online. While, in offline meet, you talk more about interest, hobbies or common things and build trust faster and usually they even share personal information easily because they trust you.
mrjay42 9/4/2025||
Just an observation, not a mean critique about the project or even the conclusions.

There's 180 participants.

There's 26 people marked at "very liberal", which is 14% of the sample.

There's 39 people marked at "very conservative", which is 21% of the sample.

-----

Then we have 31 people marked as liberal, which is 17% of the sample.

And we have 63 people marked as conservative, which is 35% of the sample.

That already I would say is kind of an issue: more than a third of the sample are conservative people and 17% are their liberal 'counter part' or 'equivalent' (sorry for my wording, I'm not native speaker).

---

If we do a little additions we therefore have:

39+63 = 102, which means that 56% of the sample is conservative

31+26= 57, which means that 31% of the sample is liberal

The rest of the sample are centrists or "neutrals" (whatever this means)

---

I am NOT saying that the study is invalid I am not saying that it's poorly done

However, I think it's fair to say that the sample is skewed towards people with conservative views, by a HUGE amount, not just "a little bit".

---

Aside from this: amazing UI design, I'm jealous and admirative of the results ^^

nonethewiser 9/4/2025||
>There's 26 people marked at "very liberal", which is 14% of the sample.

> There's 39 people marked at "very conservative", which is 21% of the sample

I think these numbers are off. Where are you getting that from? Is there raw data somewhere?

I counted the people on the page and see 39 very conservative and 47 very liberal (not 26).

I did not check the other numbers. But with that its 78 liberals which is 43%. And the total liberals + conservatives are 180. So I dont think the total participant number is 180 - thats just the total of liberals and conservatives.

And if its a 56/43 (~1.3) split for conservatives that seems to actually udnerrepresent conservatives compared to the general population without moderates. Where we see a 36/25 (1.44) conservative/liberal split in terms of ideology, not voter registration, which I think aligns more closely with the "political views" label.

>The way Americans identify themselves ideologically was unchanged in 2021, continuing the close division that has persisted in recent years between those describing themselves as either conservative or moderate, while a smaller share identifies as liberal. On average last year, 37% of Americans described their political views as moderate, 36% as conservative and 25% as liberal.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-stead...

zestyping 9/4/2025||
Okay, they messed up something here. The number of little ASCII-art person squares depends on the size of your browser window. The squares get smaller when you make the window narrower, so it looks like it was coded to try to keep the number roughly constant.

If I make the window narrow enough, there are 10 squares in a row and 19 rows, a total of 190 squares. The number that are coloured "very conservative", "conservative", "centrist", "liberal", "very liberal", respectively, are 39, 67, 24, 31, 29.

In percentages, that's 20.5%, 35.3%, 12.6%, 16.3%, 15.3%. Roughly 56% conservatives, 32% liberals.

If I make the window really wide, I see 20 squares in a row and 13 rows, a total of 260 squares. The distribution is now 39, 100, 37, 46, 38.

In percentages, that's 15.0%, 38.4%, 14.2%, 17.7%, 14.6%. Roughly 53% conservatives, 32% liberals.

It's weird that the number of squares increases and decreases when you resize the window, and I would argue it's misleading because there's an animated transition that is obviously meaningless. But it's a lot worse that the proportions aren't consistent! All of us saw exactly 39 in the "very conservative" category, so maybe it is failing to proportionally scale that category while scaling the others?

Conclusions:

1. There's a programming bug that misrepresents the proportions.

2. The sample is significantly skewed toward conservatives.

nonethewiser 9/5/2025|||
Great work... I thought I noticed something similar on the resizing. I guess they prioritized looks over accuracy which is kind of fair although its not obvious why they would have to do it this way.

In any case, it would be good to see the actual data for this stuff.

mrjay42 7 days ago|||
Thanks for the correction ^^
cheema33 9/4/2025||
In the US, registered liberals/Dems outnumber conservatives. However this study has more conservatives. It could be geography. Some states are more conservative than others. Or it could be that the $15 on offer is more appealing to conservatives.
nonethewiser 9/4/2025||
The study denotes "political views", not party registration, which have historically deviated. Part affiliation has been quite even for a long time between Republicans and Democrats but political ideology has had a significant conservative skew going back at least 30 years https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
dataexec 9/4/2025||
The Pudding is such a cool publication. They have incredible research and dataviz, in particular on cultural topics but not only. It’s worth subscribing to their newsletter. Glad to see them there!
thenoblesunfish 9/4/2025||
Beautiful. I have certainly noticed that, at work, despite my desire to be efficient, without this sort of thing, it becomes unbearable no matter how interesting the actual work is.
fragmede 9/4/2025|
what type of work environment are you usually in?
0xDEAFBEAD 9/4/2025||
Pretty sure I read somewhere that many people prefer Waymo over Uber because there's no driver, which kinda contradicts these findings.

How about HN users? Do you typically enjoy chatting with an Uber driver?

If this "30 minutes with a stranger" experiment was performed during the pandemic, it could be that people were short on human connection at the time, and that explains why they valued it so much.

titanomachy 9/5/2025||
It doesn't necessarily contradict the findings. People in this study also predicted that they would hate interacting with a stranger.

I've had interesting conversations with uber drivers and not so interesting conversations. I prefer to use one of those charge-by-the-minute rental cars if they're available, because they tend to cost 1/3 as much and I'm perfectly capable of driving myself.

0xDEAFBEAD 9/5/2025||
>It doesn't necessarily contradict the findings. People in this study also predicted that they would hate interacting with a stranger.

Sure, but if you've ridden in an Uber, you presumably would've noticed that your prediction was off?

bariswheel 9/5/2025|||
Not really though. When people are busy and attempting to go from A to B, they may want to eliminate variables to better focus on their friends or something else in the Waymo. This is similar to the experiment where an incredible musician played violin in the subway terminal and people 'ignored' him. It's all about intention, when people plan to talk to a stranger, they're geared for that, if they are on their way somewhere, it's not the time or place to stop and 'smell the roses' most of the time as they are in a rush, doesn't have much to do with how great the musician is in the subway. When people go to a concert, and if that's same musician in the subway, they'll most definitely enjoy it, because they're planning on enjoying music at that time.
chr15m 9/5/2025||
People often prefer things that are worse for them.
np1810 9/4/2025||
UI Feedback - I was having trouble figuring out what to do with the website, possibly due to the lack of text. I was tapping everywhere just to find the interactive areas (invisible buttons: who invented flat UI without shadows to hide all the interactivity?), and it took me some time to realize the website was scrollable (invisible scroll bars: who thought hiding the scrollbars without any indication of scrollable content was a good idea?). These issues are typically not the fault of the website, but rather the general UI/UX trends we have accepted nowadays. I’m using Firefox on Android.

Regarding social media - it has created more gaps rather than making us more social. It's ultimate goal is to capture our attention for as long as possible rather than connecting us. And lately, with the celebrities populating it, it has become a showoff/bragging machine.

mentalgear 9/4/2025||
Great visualisation ! We need more of this "social glue" since that's what keeps society together.
sema4hacker 9/4/2025|
On a site designed like this where I tend to not notice the scroll bar, I usually just click on the things I see to try and make something happen. In this case, not much happens from clicks (because the site desperately needs a graphic to encourage you to scroll), so I quickly lose interest and bail.
swiftcoder 9/4/2025||
I don’t really understand this viewpoint - scrolling has always been the default way to see more content on a webpage. Clicking on things to navigate is very much a secondary activity. Why would you not scroll every web page to see if there is more content that didn’t fit on your screen?
qrobit 6 days ago||
I suppose because modern websites are actually apps, in an app you click on stuff to see more content

If web page does not look like a blog or a newsletter, it is not wrong to assume the app format

dullcrisp 9/4/2025|||
Well don’t leave us hanging. Did you figure out that you need to scroll?
Reimersholme 9/4/2025||
[dead]
More comments...