Here are the odds, by country. Rate of legal immigration doesn't seem to be a primary determinate for that country's odds. www.usagreencardlottery.org/green-card-statistics.jsp

Slight nit: you want to add http to that so it gets linkified.

Thanks for posting it. It's super-interesting. I always suspected the chance for my country (Australia) was _reasonably_ good. This bears that out. In fact it might even be higher (5%) than I'd expected.

That being said I tried like 6-8 times and never won. But that's not too surprising even at 1 in 20.

In fact I think I've only ever met one person who had won this. As it happened he was from Russia.

There are quotas by "geographic region" (roughly, continent): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa#Distr...

Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and some other islands) happens to have few applicants relative to its regional quota.

What does "Winning Chances" mean? It is often very different from "Winning % By Country".

I had trouble figuring that out as well. Maybe it's "total wins proportion-out-of-100"? It seems to scale with the absolute count.

If it is that, then it's a terrible name.

Hi, CEO of Fade here. Just wanted to jump in and add a bit more color. I'm not trying to pretend that my app wouldn't benefit from not having its mentions blocked on a popular platform used by a similar demographic. But I do want to make the case that there are serious ethical questions about a platform removing its users' speech in a way that misleads them into thinking the content was removed by their peers rather than a bot. And Yik Yak's claim that this is an anti-spam tool is simply disingenuous.

Every account on Yik Yak is associated with a unique device ID. And each post can is visible to only people immediately around you. So spamming any meaningful percent of users on Yik Yak would be very difficult. You'd probably need thousands of accounts. If it ever happened, it would to easy for Yik Yak to detect and stop.

Under my direction no one on my team has posted anything at all to Yik Yak in many months. So afaik, 100% of the posts being auto-downvoted with the word "fade" are from ordinary Yik Yak users with no connection to the company. This is exactly the sort of organic "buzz" that the Yik Yak CEO Tyler Droll claims not to want to suppress in the statement he made to TechCrunch.

Yik Yak must know this because of its unique device IDs. Yik Yak can easily see that the posts that mention Fade are coming from regular users rather than spambots. That's why they are downvoting these posts rather than deleting accounts.

Yik Yak's downvote bot is new. Previously they just deleted posts with words like "fade." Why would they do this? In the GigaOM article just published, Yik Yak CEO Tyler Droll claims that the one-downvote-per-minute bot was implemented to "give people a chance to upvote [posts], which would keep them from disappearing." This is flatly contrary with the way their platform works. As the GigaOM article goes on to point out, even popular posts on Yik Yak average less than one upvote per minute, so everything getting a system downvote every minute is quickly deleted; nothing is "given a chance" to stay on the platform. Yik Yak must understand its own platform well enough to know this.

The only plausible reason for Yik Yak to switch from a simple block to a minute-by-minute downvote bot is to obfuscate to its users why their content is disappearing, to make it seem that their peers don't like it rather than a bot removing it.