Europe is edging towards making post-car cities a reality - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/08/01/streets-ahead <comment><USER3> Spent the last 6 months in Seoul and the surrounding cities in Korea. Never needed a car. You can literally do everything without a car, everything is a short walk. I truly believe it makes a huge positive impact on happiness when you can just walk anywhere instead of having to drive. Also you'll notice that in Korea/Japan there are way more small businesses and things to do (eg. karaoke, cafes, etc) because people of this. In America there's relatively less to do because leaving the home is more of a hassle and less interesting, so people just stay in more.

My least favorite thing about living in America is the dependence on cars (outside of a select few cities like NYC). Now that my parents in the suburbs sold their spare car, whenever I go back to visit, I'm stranded there during the weekdays because the nearest bus stop is like a 40 minute walk, and the nearest subway would be maybe a 90 minute walk. If I need to go anywhere, I'm dependent on Uber/Lyft. Even if I get access to a car, there's relatively much less to do as I mentioned above.

<comment><USER4> It's the case not just in Korea and Japan but in most cities outside of America. It's one of American peculiarities, like checks or no public health care.

China has a fantastic subway system in most big cities, for example. I once took a subway ride from the Shenzhen airport to the Hong Kong border, crossed the border, switched to another subway and arrived in downtown Hong Kong. That's around 65km (40 miles) by public subway!

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't say most cities unfortunately. European cities are quite walkable and not as sprawling as American ones. But it is still pretty easy to end up were only cars can go not that far from the city center, or where there is only the occasional bus. Asia is really the leader in public transport now. I think the article is slightly misleading. Currently in Europe things like bike infrastructure and public transport is sort of like the development of drones. Everyone is saying they are doing it to claim they are keeping up, but not a lot is happening. It isn't like Shenzhen were every year there is a new pedestrian street, bikes, subway line, train line or something became electrified.

<comment><USER6> I live in Europe (in Prague right now) and I never needed to own a car here. I would say it depends on the city in Europe. However, if you occasionally happen to be outside of the city center where only cars go you would call Uber. I am fine with that when 90% of my daily transport is covered by public transport.

<comment><USER7> I live in Germany, and use the bike, e-scooter/bikes/... and public transport for everything.

I have owned a car before, and I did not use those other transportation methods any less. We don't own a car anymore because it does not make economic sense for us.

When we need to travel by car inside the city, we just use Uber (~30 EUR/month is what we currently pay). When we need a car for a couple of hours to pick up stuff, we use one of the car sharing vendors. We can get "the right car" for whatever we need for ~4 hours with gas for less than ~20 EUR (~once every two months). When we want to travel around with a car, we just rent a high end one for the weekend for ~300 EUR. We do that once every two months, although in the summer a bit more often. This means we end up paying ~3000-3500 EUR/year in rentals/uber.

If we were to own a high end car, we would at least have to pay 30.000 EUR/year for a used one with 100k kms. On top, we need to pay insurance (~500-600EUR/year), parking (~150EUR/month where we live), maintenance (~200/year), handle some other burdens (wheel changes, etc.), and if for whatever reason we need a different car (to pick up something big), we still need to rent that. That puts the costs of owning a car at 2300-2400EUR/year + unforeseen maintenance + gas + rentals + (30.000 EUR - reselling value) / (years until re-selling).

Where we live, unless one uses the car at least every weekend, it makes no sense owning one. At one weekend usage per month, you can just rent, and are more flexible.

<comment><USER8> Your estimated costs are pretty average, but I found the €30k figure curious. Used cars are dirt cheap in Germany, and they are often in really good shape and well maintained compared to used cars in other countries.

I occasionally drive a 20 year old Opel that was purchased 7 years ago for €2500. It works great. I ride my bike most of the time, but it's really handy to have a car to haul kids or heavy/bulky stuff.

<comment><USER9> If you have kids, especially more than one, a no-car city center is a nightmare. Even in Europe.

<comment><USER10> That very much depends on the city. I had no problem getting around Paris/Amsterdam/London/Rome when I was traveling with my friend's family (3 kids). A car would have been a bigger nightmare with traffic and parking and we weren't even staying in the central areas.

But it also depends on how and where you live and work specifically. If I lived in a many of the areas outside of the Périphérique in Paris, not owning a car would probably impact your overall quality of life, but I'd still not want to take it into the city.

<comment><USER11> Rome should not be on that list IMO. Its public transport is terrible, at least in the centre. Still preferable to having to drive there though, that's for sure. I'm sure it's not true of every part of the city, but I was unpleasantly surprised by inadequate rush hour bus service. Haven't seen buses that packed since my childhood in 1990s Ukraine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm personally not a huge fan of driving everywhere. But I wonder whether HN's view on this isn't out of touch with the average middle class American's. The average American commute is 48 minutes round trip, significantly shorter than France (71 minutes), Italy (65 minutes), or Spain (61 minutes): [https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling...](https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling_to_and_from_work.pdf)

That's mainly because Europe has higher public transit use, and public transit is slow. Parisians who work and commute by public transit spend an average of 116 minutes a day on public transit: [https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days- a-y...](https://www.thelocal.fr/20160418/parisians-spend-23-days-a-year-on- public-transport).

Viewed from a different perspective, a country where most people can spend 48 minutes a day commuting, because it's rich enough for everyone to afford a car,[1] might be considered better than one where many people have to endure two-hour public transit commutes. Maybe utopia isn't Paris, with rich people living in beautiful walkable downtowns, but rather Houston, where middle class people can afford big houses with a pool and a short, direct commute.

[1] The median disposable income per US household is a staggering 50% higher than for a French household.

<comment><USER13> Time on a train is at least semi-productive time. You can read HN! Which, face it, is what you'd be doing anyway. Time in a car is just spent staring at the road.

<comment><USER14> I like to call my family and girlfriend during my commutes. It's much nicer to do that in the privacy and comfort of a car than in public transportation. There's also audiobooks and music.

<comment><USER15> Not sure why you're getting down-voted as having people talking (often loudly) on their phone on public transport makes it unpleasant for everyone else. I try and save calls for the car part of my commute, but then get accused of only calling cause I have nothing better to do...

You do appreciated the relative silence (no one on their phone or talking above a whisper) on trains in Japan.

Brisbane trains on the other hand - you need to wear noise-cancelling headphones (music optional) to block out other people's conversations - <USER2> in the quiet carriages.

<comment><USER16> > Not sure why you're getting down-voted

Maybe because just speaking on the phone in traffic makes a lot less attentive so you're prone to create accidents.

<comment><USER15> I would consider talking hands-free (if you're holding a phone you deserve to lose your license) no more distracting than listening to music.

There are worst things like eating or talking to someone else in the car. (look at the road not the person when you're talking)

<comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device)

[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-18024-008](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-18024-008)

>The results indicate that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surrounding traffic not only becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, but the driving condition also has a direct influence on the complexity of the conversation, thereby mitigating the potential negative effects of a conversation on driving.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the links, learnt something new. The bit about the cognitive load preparing to speak or speaking rather than passive listening was interesting.

Yes, when talking to someone in the car they should be aware of the traffic and pause the conversation, where you have to tell the person on the other end of the phone that you need to go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Its amazing to me how cheap these changes are, and how much people love them after they are implemented. You go to a neighborhood meeting in the US and all you hear about is "loss of parking", "traffic", but when you remove the cars, everyone loves it.

<comment><USER18> There is pushback against car-impacting measures in Europe too, make no mistake.

The yellow jackets in France started as a protest against increase in tax on petrol. The previous president in France, Hollande, had to roll back a toll system. It took Paris 2 years of legal battles to close the roads along the Seine.

The major difference, compared witg the US, is that at least in an urban setting, in Europe you can imagine other alternatives.

The problem of the US is that outside of major cities, the entire country was designed and built on the premise of cheap, individual transportation. Everyone has his own little house with a little garden. No town centres. This lack of density means that public transport or bikes will never be able to be able to provide a serious alternative to the automobile, and so people will never given them up.

<comment><USER19> I don't know how it is in the USA but in France (and I suspect most old European cities) the richer people who can afford to live in the city center are generally in favor of removing cars because they either don't have a car or can afford to pay for a private parking spot while people who live in the suburbs and take their cars to work every day have to suffer the consequences. So you end up with this "class warfare" type situation.

Of course since in practice the richer people who live in the city centers are also those who elect the mayors things still eventually move forward in the direction of fewer cars.

I suspect that it might be different in the USA because I've always heard that things worked the other way around here: rich people live in wealthy suburbs and go everywhere by car while poor people stay stuck in the city centers.

<comment><USER20> This is exactly how it is in the USA too, for about the past 20ish years now.

Wealthy people have largely eliminated poor/middle class people out of the core urban areas, and moved them mostly to the suburbs/exurbs. Then, wealthy people tear down the functional public transportation between the urban city and the rest of the metro (mostly roads and freeways), and replace them with pretty but function-less "public transit" (mostly buses in the midwest).

This is sold, in theory, on being "green". But the new bus system covers less than 5% of the road system it replaces, and their gentrification efforts actually decrease the usefulness of the buses that already existed, since they cut down a small forests worth of trees on the edge of the city every time they displace an previously-urban neighborhood -- so the net result is almost always _lower_ ridership - [https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/22/18628524/metro- ridership-dow...](https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/22/18628524/metro-ridership- down-housing-gentrification-transit) \- and their attempts to remove cars from the city (through intentional congestion, artificial scarcity, use fees, whatever) move this transportation to less efficient routes far outside the city, where they must burn more gasoline per person to accomplish identical trips, emitting more CO2 per person and in total.

So you get this ridiculous situation where US cities can point to all these shiny new bus lines and bike lanes as "progress", but absolutely no one can afford the housing needed to use any of that, so on a CO2-per-person basis, we've regressed significantly. And 1990's era cities with it's freeways and parking were often _better_ for the environment on a CO2-per-person basis than 2019's cities are today that lack those.

<comment><USER21> > So you get this ridiculous situation where US cities can point to all these > shiny new bus lines and bike lanes as "progress", but absolutely no one can > afford the housing needed to use any of that, so on a CO2-per-person basis, > we've regressed significantly. And 1990's era cities with it's freeways and > parking were often better for the environment on a CO2-per-person basis than > 2019's cities are today that lack those.

There's no way this is true. Housing density has increased within cities themselves. Generally things have also become more CO2 efficient within the cities as well. More people live in cities than 20 years ago. If someone in the suburbs drives, it's the same (or less with modern cars). If they use transit, it's less. If they move out of the suburbs or stop commuting, it's also less. Where does the CO2 increase come from?

It's also important to remember that these trends vary vastly depending on the city you talk about. High density cities with good existing public transit infrastructure have very much succeeded and improved public transit, not destroyed it. LA is very much not a good example due to the sprawling nature. I lived in LA for 6 months and would not call it a city but rather 13 connected suburbs. A bus there is indeed a failed project. Heck, even the Expo line they just built to connect the west side is a lot of travel time and not much coverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Not just Europe! Tokyo, for example, is a remarkably pedestrian and bicycle- friendly city, despite also supporting quite heavy traffic in some areas. And of course, the extensive train network completely eliminates the need for a car in daily life.

If you pick a random place on the map (like [1]), you'll see that the high- speed traffic is very well-separated from residential areas, with infrequent intersections. There is also little incentive to take a "shortcut" through residential areas since neighborhood roads are so narrow. The result is that neighborhood are safe and quiet enough that parents feel safe letting their small children walk along the road. I even see wildlife!

See also [2] about mixed-use zoning in Japan.

[1] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,139.622306,14.42z](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,139.622306,14.42z)

[2] [http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese- zoning.html](http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html)

<comment><USER23> The Superblock. This is what makes the these cities so comfortable to live in.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_block#Superblock](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_block#Superblock)

<comment><USER24> And unlike the absolutely terrifying planned city-like look you get from looking at pictures used to represent Superblocks, in Tokyo the superblock mechanism is the logical conclusion of organic development over the decades and has a natural feel, leading to pretty small buildings that are just densely packed together.

Almost all[1] roads in Tokyo are single lane! Not "one lane each direction" but "one lane". The massive avenues are sparse because it turns out you don't need that sort of capacity in most places.

Walking around Tokyo, even European cities feel super wasteful and car-centric with how wide roads are.

[1]: maybe 80%+? Less true in the most popular parts of the city though, where you have the biggest ap't complexes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's a lot easier for Europe to go carless than the USA. They have better _intra-city_ public transit for one. Also, most (all?) of their major cities laid out their grids before the invention of the car.

In the USA, even older cities had all but their city centers designed around cars, and if you look at the top 10 cities, 7 of the 10 saw >90% of their road construction after the invention of the car.

That being said, I don't understand why new cities in the US aren't being planned around being carless. I guess it's just so engrained in our culture that it will be hard to overcome?

<comment><USER26> Unfortunately "new cities" develop in places where everyone is used to driving, so it takes a lot to overcome a car centric culture.

I live in a college town in a rural area. The transition to public transportation happens when parking becomes expensive or impractical (such as at the university) so people park and ride on a bus.

But that still requires cars. Frankly cars have value that's hard to replace when there's a disperse population. Which maybe is the real problem in the US: there's a culture around "I want my own land". It pervades even in progressive circles...

<comment><USER27> How many such "new cities" are there really? Car culture wasn't a thing until the 1950s and I can't think of a single metropolitan city that was founded after that.

<comment><USER25> There are lots of new cities, or at least cities that were founded or built substantially after the invention of the car. Irvine, CA, for example began construction in the 60s and incorporated in the 70s (and now has more than 250K people making it a top 100 city by population). The town I grew up in only incorporated in 1982 (and most every house was built in the 70s to 90s).

Also the city of Mountain House is a planned community for 20,000 that started construction in 2001.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_House,_San_Joaquin_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_House,_San_Joaquin_County,_California)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If you want to experience a car-free place in the US, you should check out Mackinac Island in between the Upper and Lower peninsulas of Michigan. Horses, bikes, and feet are the forms of transportation—motorized vehicles have been banned since 1898. There's great history, Victorian architecture, and Great Lakes beauty. It's a pure slice of Americana.

<comment><USER29> How does that work out during the winter up there?

<comment><USER30> The only thing happening on the island is tourism, which is pretty much gone during the winter, and access to the island is marginal at best when the ferry shuts down for the season. All of the labor is seasonal as well, mostly from overseas.

<comment><USER31> I went as a kid and recall locals often having snowmobiles as well.

<comment><USER30> A slightly more populous island in the north lands:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22ice.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/22ice.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Car free in downtown Minneapolis for a while now and lease out my parking spot for $200/month.

Don't see how it could be any more convenient, easy, affordable and stress free of owning a car. Winter is easy with the Skyway [0].

I've seen people go get Starbucks in their pajama's, I can go to the gym, work, grocery store, Target, and more all through the Skyway when weather is bad.

The two light rails are only a block away and go from downtown to Mall of America and University of Minnesota. I have multiples of bus stops right outside my condo.

I usually just fill up a GoToCard with $20 when needed and go when ever and wherever I please without issues. Which gets me access to any bus or light rails.

The only downside I have so far is that I haven't found a good stop off the bus or light rails where I can conveniently and quickly get to play outdoor pick up hockey.

[0] [http://www.skywaymyway.com](http://www.skywaymyway.com)

</comment><comment><USER33> Living car-free in Berlin is ridiculously easy. I have my own bicycle, but still grab a Jump bike when I've walked somewhere and need to get home faster/easier.

But this is the summer. I haven't done the winter here yet. That'll be the test.

<comment><USER34> In the last winters it barely snowed in Berlin, so I know quite a few people who kept riding their bikes all through the year. Of course, use your head - if it is damp and then below zero, be careful. Common sense, really.

If all fails, public transport is decent enough to get you anywhere on foot. It's not perfect, I think mostly because Berlin is spatially huge and comparably empty. Cities like Paris have a much more dense public transport infrastructure. But I think you never need to walk more than ten to fifteen minutes (compared to a max of five minutes in Paris and London), which is acceptable.

There really isn't much of a reason to own a car if you live within the S-Bahn ring.

<comment><USER35> Just be aware of those tram tracks riding your bike into them can be deadly. At least in Amsterdam

<comment><USER33> Yeah, my gf wiped out on those last week. Not fun

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wish the UK was a little more forward thinking when it comes to small electric mobility devices but they actively fine you here for using them on public roads and cycle lanes.

Imagine that people have been riding electric scooters for a hundred years and along comes some new technology, a diesel van. It can transport all the things we buy online to our doors and would be beneficial to society. The problem is that there have been a few fatal accidents between vans and scooters. One of the van drivers was a celebrity. The scooter drivers die, no one else gets hurt. The government decides to ban the new vans because they are too dangerous to OTHER people. There is a big uproar and people would rather scooters be banned instead because that solves the problem too (well, except for bicycles and... people).

</comment><comment><USER37> I live in a suburb of Seattle, I haven't owned a car for about two years. It used to be owning a car was liberating, but now I think the day I sold my car was one of the most liberating days of my life.

<comment><USER38> How frequently do you "share" the road with cars? How many of your neighbors are car-less?

<comment><USER37> What do you mean "share" the road with cars? I walk almost everywhere. I have a Zipcar account that I use less than once a month and a bus pass that I use even less frequently. It is hard to say how many of my neighbors are car-less, most people seem to own cars, but not out of necessity — it is a pretty rich area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Last year in the Netherlands more e-bikes were bought than regular bikes. And on average the e-bikes cost twice as much as the regular bikes. What the Dutch have discovered is that an e-bike is more of a substitute for a car rather than for a pedal bike, it's expands the range of running errands up to 10km or 15km while being more convenient and often faster than a car.

This is future of most cities worldwide sooner or later.

<comment><USER40> As a guy from Poland, I feel like the only obstacle is atrocious weather in winter, which stops 95% people from riding bikes. From March to November it would work just fine though.

<comment><USER39> The Norwegians say,"There's no such thing as bad weather just bad clothing." :) But more seriously in poor weather if you don't have to pedal very much and you have a "fat tire" e-bike [1] you may find it's quite a bit more comfortable than you expect.

[https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radrover-electric- fat...](https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radrover-electric-fat-bike)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> On vacation in Rome this summer, there is so much foot traffic on the major streets there is often no room for cars, and they need to inch forward until the people in front of them notice them and move out of the way.

Seemed like almost all the cars were taxis, too.

So navigating the city with a personal car seemed completely impractical.

Same with Florence and Cinque Terre.

<comment><USER42> > _So navigating the city with a personal car seemed completely impractical._

YMMV, I spent my last 2 holidays in Italy with my car and went pretty much everywhere, including the old town of Siena, the center of Florence, Lucca by car. Italy is exceptionally car-friendly, but some tourists seem to be afraid to go.

<comment><USER41> > the center of Florence

You are truly a madman (or madwoman).

From what I hear, traveling between cities in Italy by car is pretty convenient. But driving along side all the people walking in the middle of Firenze streets does not sound like the kind of stress I want while on vacation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I always used public transport (metro/train/bus) to go to work. Two years ago I had to commute daily by car (just 20 minutes) and felt miserable. For me it was a total waste of time and energy.

Two months ago I switched jobs and started to go to work on my bycicle because the office is just 1 metro station away from home and I have bycicle way from home to work (which is very unusual in Madrid, by the way). This is probably the best job perk I ever had.

</comment><comment><USER44> I have lived in both Europe and US for years. It is not fair to compare both places as the population density is totally different. You still do need a car if you are living in suburb area in Europe (in my case the Netherlands). And in US there is much less people living in the city.

<comment><USER45> I'd argue that even the suburbs of Netherlands are super bike-friendly. It's always a reasonable bike ride to the nearest train station, buses fill in the rest, and the roads are setup to be safe for bikers. That's not really the case in most of the US.

<comment><USER38> I've biked from Amsterdam to Gronigen. I biked through those suburbs. At least 90% of it was on dedicated bike paths (fietspad). And I had choices on which routes to take.

I agree, the biking experience in the US doesn't compare at all to the Dutch experience. Dedicated bike paths are a game-changer. A fully-connected path network takes it to a whole other level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Forget electric cars, this is how we should be lowering our CO2 emissions.

We made a huge mistake with car oriented design and we need to rebuild our cities the right way.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's going to be tough doing this in a lot of US cities, especially those which had most of their growth after WW2. So much was built with the assumption that all transportation would be via car (or bus as an afterthought, sometimes). You can probably do it in an old downtown area but good luck trying it in suburbia

<comment><USER48> The US is seeing a large move back toward cities. It makes a lot of sense -- it's where the capital, culture, resources are concentrated. I don't think we'll see a car-less suburbia in the foreseeable future, but we can certainly build and modify our cities to be walk/bike/transit-first going forward.

There seems to be this ambient feeling that everything is as it will be, ah well, but it took decades of (bad) city planning and massive infrastructure spending to get us our suburban dystopias. It could take decades still for transit-focused cities to become the new norm.

<comment><USER49> > The US is seeing a large move back toward cities.

Is it really, or are you using "US" to mean white middle class? I googled and can't find a reference for this - do you have one?

Edit: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.GROW?locations=U...](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.GROW?locations=US)

As far as I can tell from this graph, urban population growth in the US was lower in 2018 than it's ever been.

<comment><USER48> Well, a lot of America is white and middle class. The push to move to suburbs was fueled by the white middle class, who fled the cities during and after desegregation, and was termed the White Flight.

There's a very real displacement problem that's linked to the urban population growth that you seem skeptical of; marginalized communities are being priced out of their long-time homes, being pushed out of urban centers and into suburbs and exurbs.

Anyway, census data shows strong growth of urban areas, and tepid growth of rural areas, which are a shrinking fraction of the US population.

Some cities have seen astonishing growth:

> Among urbanized areas with populations of 1 million or more, the Charlotte, > N.C.-S.C., area grew at the fastest rate, increasing by 64.6 percent, > followed by the Austin, Texas, area, at 51.1 percent, and Las Vegas- > Henderson, Nev., at 43.5 percent.

[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_censu...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html)

<comment><USER50> Mind you, "urban" by census definitions is very broad. I live in the middle of about 100 acres with a couple of neighbors 40 miles outside of a major city and I'm considered urban.

A lot or urbanization isn't Brooklyn. It's smaller cities with minimal transit systems.

<comment><USER51> The smaller the city the less transit system does it need. Local errands can be done by bike, travel to the next city just needs a train station.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> EU has the advantage that most of its small and old cities are very dense. I think it makes a lot of sense to start removing cars from their city centers. Cars are not particularly efficient or convenient anyway in narrow streets. That being said I really wonder why Amsterdam still allows cars to drive in its rings.

<comment><USER53> It's not just the narrowness of the streets: they're also short and not on a grid.

They're not designed for throughput, which really amplifies the benefits of a subway/metro vs. buses/trams.

<comment><USER54> > It's not just the narrowness of the streets: they're also short and not on a > grid.

The US suburbs with their hierarchical residential < collector < highway system were designed for cars, however most networks in the US city centers were designed before the invention of the car.

<comment><USER53> I feel like it has more to do with degree of urban planning.

Even before the car, a horse and buggy can get through a city faster arranged in a grid withoug having to turn a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> In many ways developing nations can and do have the option to skip auto-based transit and go directly into mass transit if only because many up and coming consumers don't have the capital to invest into a depreciating asset.

India, Indonesia, much of LatAm, including Mexico, most of Africa, etc. They could make autos cost prohibitive (in many places they in essence are) and invest heavily in mass transit. Skip roadways and other infra for personal vehicles.

China is in the cusp. They could simply decide to ban cars nationwide after a vigorous campaign promoting transit values.

</comment><comment><USER56> Most big cities have a majority of the population without cars at this point. These cities naturally favor more legislation against cars and this is causing city administrators to over time introduce more restrictions for cars. E.g. many Dutch cities got a head start on this to make more room for bicyclists in the nineteen seventies already. Simple measures include raising prices for parking and parking permits, introducing park and ride areas where people can park and hop on a bus to the downtown area, making lots of streets one way only and segmenting off different parts of the city such that you can only drive there via the ring road, making large parts of the down town area car free, etc. Cars are for getting in and out of the city not for driving from A to B inside a city.

I live in Berlin which is comparatively car friendly because of the German car manufacturing lobby. You can drive to the downtown area and expect to find street parking. This is very un-european at this point. Forget about doing that in Amsterdam, Paris, London, Madrid, etc. Not a thing there anymore. Even a few decades ago that would have been a bad idea. You'd be stuck in traffic for ages and your only option for parking will be a full (probably) parking garages charging massive fees. These days it's flat out not allowed or at least enormously expensive.

Even so, owning a car does not make much sense in Berlin and most tech people with comparatively decent incomes I know here in the massive startup scene don't own cars and many of the few that do rarely use them.

<comment><USER57> > You can drive to the downtown area and expect to find street parking

I don't think I've ever seen a French city where most streets, including those downtown, don't have street parking. Most of the time it's not free, but it's always there.

<comment><USER56> I've driven around quite a bit in the south of France. My experience is quite different. Even in smaller towns. E.g Avignon, Lyon, Marseille, Toulouse don't have a lot of street parking in the downtown areas. Berlin is different in the sense that you can drive right up to the Alexander Platz and actually have a decent chance of actually parking your car near by. Also not for free obviously. That would be the same as driving to e.g. the Arc de Triomf in Paris or Picadilly circus in London and finding a place to park. It's been a while since I've been too either place but I don't think this is a thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Europe has had fantastic public transportation for a long time. I lived in Germany for three years in the 1980s, never had a car, and never felt I needed one. I traveled all over western Europe.

<comment><USER59> If you ever want to reverse that opinion, I suggest taking London's tube and/or Paris' Metro or RER at peak hour in the morning.

<comment><USER60> I used to drive into west London for 10am, most days it would take 45 minutes to travel a mile from Hammersmith to Shepherd's Bush.

<comment><USER61> Note for others not familiar, if you go Hammersmith Tube Station to Shepherd's Bush Tube Station overland by bicycle then it takes five minutes, depending on traffic lights. That is actual five minutes, as in three hundred seconds.

Clearly both areas are larger than their respective train stations but the stations are representative.

To actually get a tube or other train between the two is not entirely direct, you would probably get on the wrong Hammersmith station at first (there are two), spend five minutes crossing the road to get to the other one. Then at the end a bus or long walk would be needed, so you would soon be in 45 minute territory.

The traffic can be mostly ignored if doing the route by bicycle except on the various mini ring roads they have to keep traffic deadly. Hammersmith itself is like a six lane motorway ring road of hell, easy to die on that one. Then at Shepherd's Bush there is that green bit where the traffic just goes round and round very slowly. On the bike you just go straight without getting sent around these merry-go-rounds of car fumes.

No idea why anyone would want to drive in such parts of London even though I have had to do it for work myself. It is not even driving, just slowly shunting along, blocking the way for 'serious' road users who care about their time and arriving promptly. As a cyclist I don't see myself as a serious road user, I assume those people in cars have more important journeys than mine so I am deferential to them. Yet, if being prompt matters to you and you do work in London, the bicycle is the only reliable means of getting from A to B in a dependably timely manner.

By that definition, those people in their posh cars, inching along, can't really be that serious. If they thought about it properly they would abandon their tin boxes or find better jobs. Travel by car is that silly in London.

<comment><USER62> Most people are coming from outside of London and what you find is that it is usually quicker to drive in and just sit in the traffic than mess about doing park and rides and then travelling in.

<comment><USER60> It was far quicker to walk a mile to Twyford station, get the train to Ealing, and the tube to White City (or fast train to Paddington and tube to Shepherds Bush now) than to drive.

It was a long time ago, and I don't work in Shepherds Bush any more, but the trip today would be

      0835 - leave home
      0856 - get slow train to London
      0935 - arrive Ealing
      0950 - arrive White City
      0955 - arrive at office

Or

      0840 - leave home
      0900 - get fast train to London
      0932 - arrive Paddington
      0950 - arrive White City
      0955 - arrive at office

Driving was

      0800 - leave home
      0900 - arrive Hammersmith flyover turnoff
      0950 - arrive car park
      0955 - arrive at office

It was the hammersmith roundabout that was the real killer.

The reason I drove in for 10AM (once a week) was because I was on 12-14 hour shifts, and driving home after 10pm was about 50 minutes. Very few people working office hours would drive into London, especially Central London, and parking at stations across the south east is often full by 9AM.

<comment><USER62> Interesting tbh if it was the same amount of time I would just drive in.

Outside of London the train is always slower. I used to live in Manchester and get the train into Stoke. Driving was always faster without exception. Generally it was cheaper as well (I have a crappy old diesel astra that is even cheaper to repair and I will drive it til the wheels fall off).

<comment><USER60> All things being equal I'd rather take the train - you can read, work, watch TV

The main benefit of driving is not having to wait for a specific train.

From where I live in south cheshire, it's quicker to get the train into Manchester than drive (although quicker to drive to Stoke than train). That's with a 0930 arrival in Picadilly Gardens.

Same to get to Cardiff, Birmingham and certainly London (2h15 to Euston, vs 2h40 to the M25 with no traffic)

If I had to be in Picadilly Gardens for 0900 though it would be faster to drive thanks to the train times.

<comment><USER62> Virgin trains wants basically another 10-15 a month on top of your journey for internet and you can't take a bike on their trains without phoning ahead first. Cross country aren't much better.

Phone internet doesn't work on the train typically. That combined with the travel sickness after each journey make the car much more appealing.

I will never go back to using the train as long as I can legally drive. They are just garbage in the UK and expensive.

I doubt I will buy a new car either. I own two cars. I have an old 1994 mercedes SL which is kept in a storage garage at the moment and the other car is a 2005 vauxhall astra that is getting up to 400,000 miles and doesn't show any signs of dying just yet. Every newer car I have driven is full of mostly electric crap which tends to break or they have some awful drive by wire nonsense that takes the feeling out of the vehicle.

I think much like the operating systems I use, I am going to resist using any newer tech as long as I am able to.

<comment><USER60> I use 4G tethering and works really well between Crewe and Manchester (well enough for uninterupted youtube streaming and ssh sessions). Virgin "pendilinos" have free wifi now too. Northern run on the Manchester-Stoke line and don't need bike reservations. YMMV.

<comment><USER62> Yeh well I gave catching the train a chance (I was riding trains for about 10 years before I could afford a car) and driving is much easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> I lived in a city with extensive public transportation infrastructure (Moscow) for 7 years without a car. TBH, I would not trade my current suburban US lifestyle for a high density city. Want groceries? Gotta carry them in all the way from the store (which usually within walking distance, but still, shit's heavy unless you buy groceries every day, which can be quite wasteful). Job not within walking distance (which it rarely is)? Say hello to 1-2hrs of daily commute (about 35 min of which for me was walking). Kid has hobbies that aren't within walking distance? Pain. Need to get something from a store that's not nearby (i.e. hardware, household goods)? Long commute _and_ carry stuff as well. Need to get something you can't carry? Gotta rent a car or pay for delivery. It's snowing or raining? Tough luck, gotta walk to the subway and/or store all the same. Etc, etc. Hundreds of these situations where in the US I just get into a car and go wherever I want. I don't even get wet if it's raining outside.

This "car-less" stuff only looks good (on paper) to two categories of people:

      1. Europeans who never had a car and therefore don't fully understand the upsides
      2. Americans who never lived without a car and therefore don't fully understand the downsides

<comment><USER64> The wheel is 5,000 years old. How did you spend 7 years walking to the grocery store without realizing you could buy a cart instead of carrying your groceries by hand?

Also I live in a dense city and have a 10 minute subway commute. A regular city lifestyle does not involve a 2 hour commute, you just lived too far from work for your own good.

<comment><USER63> Moscow is quite large, and it is unlikely that your job will be nearby. You should consider yourself lucky if you have only a 10 minute commute, few people are lucky like that. Just getting to the city center (where the job is likely to be) from the periphery (where one is likely to live) can easily take: 10 minutes walking, 5 or so minutes waiting for the right bus to get to the nearest subway station, 5-7 minutes of riding the bus, 15-20 minutes riding the subway (more if there are transfers), etc. That's one way. And it assumes you don't have to ride the bus or walk much on the other end (which is often not the case). In the winter the above ground part of the journey implies -30C weather conditions, slippery sidewalks, and other "fun" challenges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> If you are willing or able to live within reach of public transport or bike/walking, a no-car life is awesome. I did many years of tense heavy US traffic before I moved to NL, and I must say it's so awesome to not own or care about a car.

The US is mostly not designed for car-free situations. That's a long story, but it ends in "limited decent public transport options". To go into that topic would be too political here. Suffice to say, unless you live in a progressive part of the US (or you move to within walking range of your job), you need a car.

Europe has the advantage? of being much older, when cities were more dense. There's no place to affordably park a car, so you must walk or bike, or use a bus/tram (or metro/train if you're lucky).

There are certainly times in summer in the Netherlands during peak time when a full train (standing room only) really truly sucks. But that's less than 1/4 of the year. The rest of the time I can work, sleep, look at the attractive fit people, or even talk to people. My days of driving in big Texas city traffic were certainly not that. (Guns actually do get plucked out of glove boxes and waved as a threat from time to time.)

<comment><USER66> I think it's possible to live car-free in many cities in the US but the difference is you can't conveniently get very far without a car. In Paris not only can you live car-free but you can go all over the place, different countries even, by train, pretty conveniently. In the US you'll be restricted to travel within the core of a city and that perk comes with a massive premium so it's likely you can't even afford it. Living car-free in the US might as well be a status symbol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I love my electric moped. Riding it around my European big-city, it just feels so comforting. Its so quiet, it doesn't scare ducks.

Scooters are taking over - Vienna is a green city that has had time to refine its transportation culture over a millenia. Parts of it were built for horses.

When I'm on my electric moped, I ride it like a horse. No need to over-do it and speed, or whatever, just pace along at a trot. There's a harmonic spot where the curves and corners of the city suddenly become super-fluid, and I even get all the green lights .. I'm pretty sure its because the physical geometry is designed for horses, and the electric moped drive train can approximate that.

Anyway, I can't wait until all the cars disappear. Europe is going to be even more beautiful.

<comment><USER68> One problem though: as of today, shared electric moped/scooters are actually worse for the environment than privately-owned ICE cars.

Source: [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2da8)

<comment><USER69> Sort of seems like you didn't read your own quote:

"When e-scooter usage replaces average personal automobile travel, we nearly universally realize a net reduction in environmental impacts."

This is not the same as "actually worse for the environment than privately- owned ICE cars", and I'm guessing you've got a reason for your FUD?

I ride electric, too. Mine is charged by solar power. Sure, it took a lot of carbon to get my systems in place - but that's still 100x better than the daily emissions I'm no longer producing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was in Antwerp this year for the first time thus I can agree with the article. It really is super easy to move around with the bike. Countries like Belgium, Holland, and Denmark are famous for that. They even have big parking lots for bicycles next to train stations. So that you can come by train, pick up your bike and continue your way. And they do so despite bad weather.

In general, in the European cities east Berlin wall, the bicycle infrastructure is not that great. Yet, there are European funds that close that gap and you can see many cycling roads in countries like Poland or Hungary.

There are also European bicycle 'highways' called Eurovelo that are being built from the European money. I think Europe is going into the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER70> Surprising how the comments so far (351) seem to be debating car vs. public transport, while the original article was more about car vs. other means of personal transportation, including bikes, ebikes and scooters:

> _Two wheels good, four wheels bad_

Most car rides are done with just one person at the wheel (or in the case of Uber/Lyft, a driver and just one rider). The size and weight of the vehicle is the problem.

A bike weights 30% or less of the weight of the rider; a car, 300% or more. That we consider "normal" or even acceptable to move so much metal to transport us, is simply unreasonable and crazy.

<comment><USER71> let alone if you're on your bike and get slammed by a car

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Just left Paris this week. I was surprised to see how many electric scooters are on the road. But out of the experience riding them in central Paris, I found them - 1. being too expensive: riding Lime for 1.5 km cost me 4 euros, way more expensive than metro; 2. being difficult to ride: riding scooter is hard because the acceleration and brake is too sudden for beginners and it's easy to lose control when encountering hard obstacles on the road; 3. central Paris is not scooter-friendly because lots of road are made of stones and there are not many bike-routes as I see.

</comment><comment><USER73> Was in Europe for six weeks last Summer and I saw plenty of cars. The only city that seemed close to a post-car future was Amerstdam. The others I visited: Dublin, London, Barcelona, Brussels, and Prague all had plenty of cars. Now, that's not to say you needed them, but Amersterdam seemed to be the only one where it was evident that people were really embracing no cars. Of couse those are just cities, I never got out into the countryside much except for Ireland and the Czech Republic. Not much public transit out there.

</comment><comment><USER74> It's a great idea for cities but despite what many people here are saying, I don't see myself selling my car any time soon.

I live in the Boston area and until about 2 years ago didn't own a car. I don't need it for commute since I bike or take the train. The public transit in Boston and nearby towns is decent. But if you want to go to a town farther away you're usually out of luck. Car sharing is great but it wasn't a good enough solution for me.

Zipcar started in the Boston area and overall there are many options today such as Turo and others. The problem is that these services are at peak demand when you need them the most. During the week there are many Zipcars available in my area but I usually don't need a car then. On the weekend when the weather is nice and I need a car to go hiking, everyone else needs a car too and if I didn't book in advance I need to travel across town for an available car. And twice I did it just to find out there was a problem with the car. (that was the breaking point for me and led me to cancel my Zipcar membership and buy a car).

There are other problems too. Now we have a kid and need a carseat. That makes Uber/Lyft much more of a hassle. We're not gonna travel around carrying a carseat. Many of the people here commenting probably don't have kids.

Having a car on the weekends is just convenient. The carseat is already installed. The hiking/beach gear is all in the trunk. We have a bike rack and go on biking trips (some car sharing companies let you book a car with a rack but those are more limited). For us it wasn't even a big investment, we got a great car for $6500 which we only use on the weekends and so far had no issues.

</comment><comment><USER75> It is interesting how many comments focus on anecdotal evidence ("it is very hard to live without a car where I live so it can't be done anywhere") or on exceptions ("what if you cannot walk because you're too old?" "what if you need to move your sofa?"...). It is typical for a lot of discussions about cars.

The article is about dense European cities. Not about <insert your prefered coutryside area here>. Nobody argues you do not need a car in the countryside. In cities in the other hand, cars take a lot of (pricey) space, generate noise and pollution. And when you need one, you can rent one, borrow one or use a taxi/uber/lyft.

And as we are talking about dense cities, the usual argument of "but wait, US is not as dense, we need cars!" is moot. US cities need cars because of being designed for cars. That's it, and that could be changed but that would require massive investments.

<comment><USER76> Indeed, I am a bit tired of all the reasons my city (Amsterdam) is unworkable or simply impossible, because it doesn't resemble [Springfield].

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Edging? It's been the case for Europe for a few decades all along. You can live perfectly fine in Berlin without a car. You'll never need it. U-Bahn, S-Bahn, DB work perfectly. Lots of bike lanes everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER78> I think downtown Palo Alto should close off University to cars, and give it a try. Turn it into a big pedestrian zone, and let the restaurants put seating out in the space that this opens up.

</comment><comment><USER79> Makes sense as European cities were designed and built before the car. For us in the new world I'm afraid our foundations in suburbia have locked us in.

</comment><comment><USER80> Kind of.

As a lucky one to live in one of those future cities, yes it is cool to move around.

However living on the suburbs or not being lucky to live in a few selected cities per country and it is back to choosing between 1h - 2h of commute time due to multiple exchanges and schedule times, or do the same way in about 30m.

Good that we are making progress, but not every city is Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Antwerp... nor everyone happens to live in the city center.

</comment><comment><USER81> I was wondering how people who live in cities in carless mode manage when they have kids. Since I could not find by simply skimming the comments, I searched for "kids" keyword, but so far it only appears twice in 200+ comments. Do people move out of cities immediately when they have kids or they have no opinion about this topic?

<comment><USER82> I live in Denmark, don't have a kids though. While I bike myself I often see parents who transport their kids in bikes with 2 front wheels and a box. They also got a cover and are thus protected from the elements. Also busses and trains have areas for baby strollers. At some point kids can also bike them self.

I don't know how many are completely carless. I don't think I know a parent who is. Most have one car, but also use public transportation / bike when possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> It would seem logical that this is easier in cities that existed before the car vs cities that existed after. Those cities would have had sufficient residential and commercial density that the adapted to facilitating travel by car and truck and could more easily adapt back vs what we see with post-car cities that are sprawling.

</comment><comment><USER84> [https://outline.com/hrKMMW](https://outline.com/hrKMMW)

</comment><comment><USER85> It's curious to me that you see the same arguments and rebuttals in all US v Europe discussions (usually over gun control or transportation). I also find it curious that I find myself reading them every time. Wasn't the FAQ supposed to fix this?

</comment><comment><USER86> I am visiting Montréal on holdiday today with my family. Old Montreal by the waterfront was a wonderful pedestrian experience. I recently read that they had proposed a highway in the same area back in the 60s. What fools we were.

</comment><comment> Pete-Codes Edinburgh has some pretty cool plans for making more streets pedestrianised. It also helps that these streets are popular with tourists so doesn't make sense for cars to be going around a medieval city centre.

<comment><USER87> It sure does, Edinburgh also no plans to make life easier and sustainable for families who actually live here. Train services are unreliable, ever increasing property prices in the city itself and even the satelite towns are getting more expensive. Commuting into Edinburgh is a nightmare and likely to get worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Is there a law of headlines which makes anything which groups the whole of Europe demonstrably false? Car free in London or Paris, sure. Car free in Glasgow or Birmingham, no thanks.

It's probably almost as true for the USA.

</comment><comment><USER89> I am unconvinced about this claim.

Sure there are a lot of movements towards getting cars out of the city, but very little is done to compensate for how to get resources in and out so it will naturally have limits.

</comment><comment><USER90> The Hague is now building large residential towers next to the three largest train stations. People who will live there will have no right to get a parking permit.

</comment><comment><USER91> This is kind of tangent, but..

What's the state of startup-ish public transit? Carpooling Ubers or app-based (rather than route-based) bus systems?

Anything interesting happening?

</comment><comment><USER92> Can't come soon enough.

Cars within dense cities are a cancer.

</comment><comment><USER93> Most East Asian cities are very walkable, because of the dense population.

Some great examples, Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, etc

</comment><comment><USER94> The flipside of the coin needs to be mentioned too. What Europe is doing around zoning and infrastructure is, as is often the case, the "Big Government" model, compared to the U.S.'s more "Small Government" approach.

I get the impression that, outside of a few major metropolitan areas with real estate booms, most areas within the U.S. have been comparatively more successful than most areas within Europe at enabling decently-sized real estate at affordable prices and at enabling the younger generation to get on the real estate ladder without their parents' help.

Cities where infrastructure is super-dense and everything is walkable, like NYC and many European city centers are nice for young people, students, urban/digital nomads, tourists, etc.

When you get to a certain age and want to settle down and start a family, priorities start to change and you realize how trapped you are, with the European model.

You're paying a fortune to rent a shoebox. Add to that the high taxes and mandatory social security that exists in Europe. This means, you find yourself in a situation where you're wealthy but cash poor, and have little opportunity to accumulate wealth in the form of cash. (The kind of cash that would be needed as a down-payment on larger real estate).

The option that people exercise in the U.S. is "move to the burbs". ...but this option is not so readily available in Europe. Here, high standards of infrastructure are enforced before planning permission for residential development in suburbs/exurbs can even be granted. This means that this kind of real estate is pricey pretty much the day it becomes viable to build there. Further out, in properly rural areas, zoning laws will often permit building there only when buildings have an actual agricultural purpose.

The car plays a pretty important part in that: Rezone a bunch of agricultural land into residential. Build some roads that go there and connect it to the powergrid and telecommunication network. Boom. Affordable real estate. People can move there, and after you have enough people, you can start to think about public transportation, schools, things to do, and all that other stuff. But you do that AFTER it has become economically viable to offer that stuff, not as a prerequisite for allowing people to build there. This is, in my mind, something that the U.S. has a lot of and that we could really use more of in Europe.

<comment><USER95> >> When you get to a certain age and want to settle down and start a family, priorities start to change and you realize how trapped you are, with the European model.

It's hard to overstate how happy I would be if the street outside my apartment wasn't a canyon of speeding vehicular death for a toddler.

I love everything about living in the city with my child except for the sheer number of cars that pass through in the name of "freedom" and for a lack of decent alternatives. It's a short walk or bicycle ride to any number of amenities, and a short commute to work means I can spend more time at home with him.

I didn't like the car traffic before, and I hate it even more now. If there was a car free city on the US Eastern seaboard with an office for my employer, I would move there in a hot second.

<comment><USER94> What I'm saying:

Cars are really only a problem in densely populated cities. But they are also the thing that makes less-densely populated areas viable to live at.

Public transport is what makes it possible to live without a car. But public transport is only economically viable in densely populated areas.

So: This equation resolves into something pretty obvious: Have car-free cities, but also continue car-based development of areas of lesser density, probably with "park and ride" being the interface.

Making the car and low population density out to be the devil and a remnant of the past, and car-free high-density development to be the future and solution of all transport-problems is a completely one-sided view.

<comment><USER95> You said a lot of stuff, and that wasn't my takeaway from it.

What's completely one-sided is development patterns and land regulation in much of the developed world and especially in the United States that favor detached housing and single occupancy vehicle commutes over any other form.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> [http://archive.is/eUpyE](http://archive.is/eUpyE)

</comment><comment><USER97> [http://archive.is/eUpyE](http://archive.is/eUpyE)

</comment><comment><USER98> When the weather is nice in my city every last electric scooter is parked at the beach.

<comment><USER99> Seems like individual non-fixed prices could be some kind of undiscovered Holy Grail to increase revenue and fix the unequal distribution of scooters. Also, I see scooters being collected at night for charging. Maybe another use-case for such incentives?

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Awesome.

Who needs the hype of self driving cars if you can get rid of the cars entirely?

</comment><comment><USER101> Can't wait :)

</comment><comment><USER102> When I lived for 4 years in Barcelona I didn't have a car and I lived pretty far from the city center (Horta). I only missed it when I went to the Ikea of Badalona.

</comment><comment><USER103> Germany love <3

</comment><comment><USER104> Good! Americas obsession with cars is one of its most glaring deficiencies. Every city should be accessible without a car, however unless you are in NYC, Chicago, or LA, or San Fran, well then that just isn't true.|

<comment><USER105> I would definitely not include LA on a list for accessible without a car, and San Francisco is debatable.

<comment><USER106> I have taken several trips to Los Angeles without using a car. It's not convenient, but it works if you allow enough time - the bus lines do at least exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> A thought in the back of my mind is fear of government oppression in a world without prevalent cars.

If you have a car you can travel hundreds of miles with few limitations and it's particularly hard to quash this even in an oppressive state.

If you only have your feet and public transit you are very limited to distance and location and tracking movements is an easy feature of the system. Things going wrong? The government can shut down the trains at whim.

A car grants a whole lot of freedom that many progressive people are really excited to give away.

<comment><USER108> an interesting point but such a quintessentially american mindset imo. This thing could potentially used wrong so let's build in all kinds of hedges and failsafes; our freedoms could be impinged in these edge cases so this is a no go, etc.

cannot help but lament the inefficiency and stagnation arising from this culture of distrust

<comment><USER109> Sorry to the American folks here, this might sound offensive, but I agree with bllguo. As an European colechchristensen's point of view feels alien.

I'd argue that for the average European this kind of comment would seem paranoid bordering on insane.

I guess some cultural differences are found way deeper than you'd expect.

The European point of view about the whole "government opression" thing is that you don't fight tyranny with guns and cars (LOL), but with a population educated about the benefits of democracy. If you've lost the people, nothing can save you.

<comment><USER110> on the cultural differences.. I've always loved the saying: Europeans see 100km as a long distance, while Americans/Australians see 100 years as a long time.

<comment><USER57> Well, 100 km is next door when there's a direct rail line and when discussing with my granparents, 100 years is a long time. I get what you mean though

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> I'm glad this works for the people who live there and makes them happy. As for myself, I refuse to live in any city dense enough to even have a public transportation system.

<comment><USER112> In a lot of places, even 100 person villages have a regular bus system. This isn't about density, it's about infrastructure.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Pullquoter – Node CLI tool to grab interesting sentences from articles - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ageitgey/node-pullquoter

<comment><USER2> Interesting, especially that its quote-selection is apparently informed by actual linguistics research. It seems to do a pretty good job.

I'm thinking that I might be able to adapt something like this to read HN links autonomously and automatically post useful comments. Automating this task could save me a lot of time:).</comment>


Optimistic Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.portfolio.com/careers/features/2008/03/19/Optimistic-Entrepreneurs/

<comment><USER2> Ok, I obviously know that there's a place for niched startups in the ecosystem.

But think about this guy's potential Total Addressable Market. How many videos on YouTube are personal confessionals? Let's estimate one in every two thousand, so 0.05% of their total. Let's assume this guy can double the size of that market through his concentration on the subject. 0.1% of YouTube's realized market value is $1.65 Million.

Sometimes people should just use their head when analyzing a market instead of their heart. Pick a market that has reasonable growth potential. I think a lot of investors get hosed by reasonable entrepreneurs with unreasonable market expectations.

</comment><comment><USER3> If I'm remembering correctly, relentless, irrational optimism is a personality characteristic that comes out again and again in psychological studies of successful entrepreneurs.

I suppose it's related to persistence.

</comment><comment><USER4> Great story. Lots of examples of things you can do until your angel arrives.

</comment><comment><USER5> Great post</comment>


Live Chat on the web is broken (well, mostly) - <AUTHOR> http://hipmob.tumblr.com/post/32417058700/live-chat-on-the-web-is-broken-well-mostly

<comment><USER2> I agree. Has anyone ever bought anything through a live chat feature or after using one? I always treat them like a pop-up window I have to close so I can go back to reading the page to see if I want to buy or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. Understand the skepticism. That being said, companies as varied as Zappos and Airbnb have used live chat on their sites to make customers happy a while now . . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 1) On the rare occasion that I've used live chat I haven't had this problem.

2) Isn't this just an ad for hipmob.com?

<comment><USER4> 1) I've had it happen a few times, but now if I know I have to step away from my desk to do something, I will let the customer service representative know and they are fine with waiting, they just need to know before hand.

2) It's 100% an ad. Sure, it can describe why a majority of the "Live Chat" systems don't work, but instead of explaining how to fix them, it just links off to two companies that have a product and then call that a solution.

They should have explained how the two companies they recommend do it differently than the rest instead of just say "Use these two, AND USE US FOR YOUR PHONE APP!!!"

How does the code integrate into apps? What does the client for the user and the client for the support agent look like? What's the benefit of using this instead of linking to a support e-mail address? Do I have to have the app open in order to get live support help?

It sounds cool in theory, but without a demo video or walkthrough, I can't be sold on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here - demo video is forthcoming.

Integration docs here for iOS: <http://www.hipmob.com/documentation/ios.html>

And more here: <http://www.hipmob.com/documentation/>

EDIT: And we dont have a product for the web - wasn't meant as an ad, just to highlight some observations I've made in the past.

<comment><USER4> The video is going to be what sells this product. I'll check back in once you have it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is not really something for the HN frontpage...

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here - any particular reason?

<comment><USER5> I just think that the topic is not very technical or interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> we use snapengage on our site and it's a pretty smooth experience. Very happy with it.</comment>


What's the biggest programming mistake you've ever made? - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9yejl/whats_the_biggest_programming_mistake_youve_ever/

<comment><USER2> Is there any way we can stop with the reddit and Rolling Stones posts?

</comment><comment><USER3> Just as a heads-up, this reddit post is 2 years old.

</comment><comment><USER4> About twelve years ago, I wrote a CGI script with a loop like "for(i=10;i>0;i++){}", with the counter going in the wrong direction. Since it was running as apache, I did not have rights to kill it. My buddy used this server for his business and I had DOSed it for about fifteen minutes until the integer overflowed. If the language had used a bignum, it would have been worse.

I made as similar mistake on the school's server a couple of years later when I had an infinite loop in an XSLT file that I was developing. Fortunately, libxslt had a way of detecting infinite loops in which it logged a warning to /var/log/messages and, far less fortunately, repeated the loop. Once again, I did not have rights to stop it and I had run it on a weekend when nobody was working. The hard drive was full well before anyone came in to work on Monday.

Lessons learned: Test web-based programs from the command line whenever possible. If you're a server admin, let your users' CGIs run under their identities and consider using resource limits.</comment>


Show HN: QueryStorm – A query IDE inside Excel - <AUTHOR> https://www.querystorm.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've posted about this about six months ago, the original post ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11583488)) was fairly well received, and I thought I'd follow up.

Back then the plugin was called ThingieQuery, which turns out not to be a great name for a product aimed at enterprise customers. Since then, I've been quite busy, I've incorporated, rebranded, sold (licenses), polished, and other verbs as well. I've also adjusted the pricing and switched to a freemium model.

Here's the free vs. paid breakdown:

\- Free stuff: basic IDE functionality, full SQL support for tables in Excel, query automation, non-commercial use

\- Paid stuff: (in addition to all the free stuff) connectivity to external databases, advanced IDE functionality (autocomplete, error squigglies, etc.), commercial use

The free feature set is pretty useful on its own. Offering it makes sense from a business perspective - to drive adoption, but also from a personal standpoint, since it's a product I'm proud of and would like as many people to make use of it as possible.

The paid licenses come in two flavors:

1\. Professional

\- for people paying out of pocket

\- can activate 2 machines at the same time (e.g. work/home)

\- licenses can be transferred ad-hoc to other machines with a 1-min procedure (e.g. when working on a client's computer)

2\. Enterprise

\- a per-seat license for purchase by companies

\- includes support

\- can also be transferred from machine to machine

The license types were in large part influenced by the feedback I got in the original post.

I should note that I'm running a December discount promotion; you can use the following key to get a cool 40% discount on a Professional license: RZHDNDT4

In any case, please do take a look and give it a try. The trial licenses (for the premium features) have been reset since last post, so you can use a new one even if you've used a trial before.

Feedback, customers, and free users are most welcome and appreciated:)

<comment><USER2> Hi, this is great. I'd gladly pay $99 for having such a convenient helper. However, I'm sad to see it's a temporary license. This is not SaaS, but priced like one.

Can't you make it $X for the product + 1 year of updates?

I understand that you need sustainability but you can seek for that on enterprise support deals and by convincing users to renew their license after a year to get a newer version.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi patates. I get your point. As a user, I'd want that too. I had previously priced the professional license at $149 as a one-off price, but then noticed companies were buying those instead of the enterprise ones, and getting unlimited licenses. I'd definitely like to keep the subscription model for enterprise licenses, but would not mind having the private ones be a one-off price. I'll have to think about that. If I do that at some point, I'll change the existing licenses to permanent, to not be a jerk to existing customers:)

<comment><USER3> JetBrains which creates IntelliJ etc is nice this way, they give you a permanent license to the last version released while you were still a customer (provided you are a customer for more than x months first.)

I find this both smart and nice: you can pay monthly and still get a permanent license so you won't be trapped.

Full disclosure: I use Netbeans which is free from the start and which I like better anyway, I'm just saying Jetbrains seems to be a nice company ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, something like that might be the way to do it. Cut off old licenses from new versions but leave it functioning indefinitely with old versions. Offer a paid upgrade option. I think I like that option.

<comment><USER4> Always seemed like a fair system to me as well. You're paying for a year of updates, then after that it'll continue to work and receive security-critical updates, but you won't get the new features. Of course, it's possible to totally plan features out over the years to encourage people to upgrade, or e.g. Hold back something many have wanted in order to release it with the next big version where people would get cut off, but alas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just a heads up, your "buy" button 404s [https://www.querystorm.com/payment/buy](https://www.querystorm.com/payment/buy)

Also, remember your first post. Love the new name! Great product too, good luck out there! (Don't think you'll need it).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the heads up (fixed it) and the kind words!

<comment><USER6> Now it's a 500.

<comment><USER5> To clarify, he didn't fix the page I mentioned, he just changed the link to point to the new place :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there anyone doing anything like this out in open-source land?

Is there anywhere I should go to find open-source resources for Excel?

It seems like most Excel stuff that is easy to find is distributed similarly to this tool. Managing macros in source control is annoying!

<comment><USER8> govert's excellent ExcelDNA [1] enables one to build XLL Addins in .Net. Many use it for crafting Excel extensions, including BlockSpring. I used it for SSAddin [2] to build cron jobs as well as tiingo and quandl downloads in Excel.

[1] [https://github.com/Excel-DNA](https://github.com/Excel-DNA) [2] [https://github.com/SpreadServe/SSAddin](https://github.com/SpreadServe/SSAddin)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What I think is missing in term of data analysis in Excel, is a pivot table that can work on a relational dataset in a SQL server, without downloading the whole table as a join as a first step.

Use case: the data is too large to be downloaded and held in memory on a client computer. What you really want to happen is for the aggregation to happen on the SQL server. So that the pivot table would generate SQL code dynamically for the SQL server to do the equivalent of what the pivot table would do with in-memory data, and would only download and display the result.

SQL is useful to developpers, but you can't expect business users to write complex queries.

<comment><USER10> Basic SQL is pretty easy to pick up, especially if you're motivated to get something done. You can get a lot done knowing how to work simple JOINs, WHERE clauses, and some aggregate functions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, if you can understand vlookup, you can certainly pick up sql joins fairly easily. You can do quite a lot even with basic SQL skills.

Reaching business people from a marketing perspective and talking to them about SQL is a whole different thing, though.

<comment><USER9> Yeah but I found myself in that exact position. I provided data to a bunch of business users who don't understand SQL but understand pivot tables extensively.

I have the choice between either spending a few days educating them on how to do SQL, or to give them data in a way that they can use the tools they are already familiar with.

I was too busy to do the former.

The other thing is that SQL sucks at creating pivot tables. It is good when you only want to aggregate in one direction. When you want to aggregat in multiple directions (column A by row, column B by row) the syntax becomes tedious to do by hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Awesome! I work in Excel on a shared Windows server VM. Is it possible to install an add-in like this for one user, or will everyone using Excel on this VM see the add-in?

Ideally, I'd buy a license for myself right now and start using it if I could install the add-in only for myself without needing an admin user to install it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you like it!:) It's a per-user installer, so only you would see it. It shouldn't require admin privileges unless a prerequisite is missing.

It requires .NET 4.5 and vstor (visual studio tools for office runtime).

\- .NET 4.5 comes out of the box with Win8 or higher.

\- vstor comes out of the box with Office2013 or higher.

QueryStorm's installer checks if the two prerequisites are present, and if not, downloads them from Microsoft and installs them automatically. It will prompt for admin rights only if one of them is not present and needs to be installed.

Is it popping an admin prompt for you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm assuming you're using the traditional excel plugin model (written in c++ or .net) and not their new "Office Apps" (formerly add-ins) that works on both excel native and in Office365 web versions of excel?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the .NET one - VSTO, visual studio tools for office. Haven't played around much with the web one. Most things QueryStorm does wouldn't be possible in the office apps model, e.g. hosting SQLite. It's too bad because it limits QueryStorm to PC desktop only.

<comment><USER13> > "Most things QueryStorm does wouldn't be possible in the office apps model, > e.g. hosting SQLite."

Odd, what problems would you have hosting SQLite with an Office App? I've got a solution that could work if you're interested, it's a bit of a hack but I've done a proof of concept before that shows it works... Essentially you can run your own local web server as a service, and have the Office App make use of this service. You could even get the web server to start when Excel starts.

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly I haven't tried Office Apps, it just seemd like it would be tricky and I didn't have time to investigate. I can see how the local web server hack might work, though. Would it work in the browser and on the Mac?

<comment><USER13> > "Would it work in the browser"

Depends on how you host the app. If it's hosted locally, then no.

>"and on the Mac"

Maybe. I'm nor that familiar with the Office for Mac features. I did try to search online to see whether Office for Mac supported Office Apps, but it's not the easiest thing to search for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am proud I was one of the firsts to upvote and comment about ThingieQuery on HN, 604 days ago (if I remember well I was the first one, and my comment reflects that).

I liked the other name better, but I understand the reasons for changing it. I am pretty happy it grew into a sustainable and profitable product.

I'm curious about the use-cases this plugin has in enterprise companies. I've never worked in big companies that used Excel or whatever. What is the flow? Which kind of companies use this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I remember your username from back then, thanks for the support!! Yeah, that was the first HN post I did.

About use-cases: techy people use if for hacking away at data in Excel and import/export. Enterprises also seem to want the automation part. The main scenario there is to have IT folks prepare queries, embed them into the workbook and set up triggers. Business users or clients then just interact with the workbook, without caring about the SQL queries that are running in the background populating data. Nice for interactive reports, much faster than building web applications for the purpose. That said, I do need to start doing surveys as this are just my conclusions based on email exchanges with users.

<comment><USER14> It's great to know I don't have to know all the dirty details behind enterprises to develop a useful and profitable product!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Given that MS Office is priced at $99 per year, your pricing seems very high.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is anyone having installation issues? I'm showing strange things in logs. I can see downloads, but my licensing service does not seem to be issuing the free licenses.

</comment><comment><USER16> Looks great but I would guess all this functionality is already built into excel somewhere. You just have to be ninja enough to find it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, some things you certainly could, but this really opens up many more possibilities than is obvious at first glance. Another big thing is convenience, which is along the lines of what you said. Single click to open query editor, full autocomplete, star expansion, etc., easy 2-way communication between a db and Excel (instead of the clunky import/export procedures).

There are a ton of areas where this offers benefits, in larger or smaller ways. It can solve problems people don't even recognize.

<comment><USER17> I guess that's one problem you have to worry about now. Microsoft is bound to incorporate something like this into Excel sooner or later. :(

<comment><USER18> Better yet, Microsoft might offer to buy them out.

<comment><USER17> throwback [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> anybody remembers the tiny almost hidden relational editor built into excel ?

</comment><comment><USER20> I bought this last time it was posted here, back when it was ThingieQuery. It's been super useful to me. Definitely recommend trying it out, it's basically a SQL IDE within Excel.

Some of the things I've used it for:

\- Poking around random SQLite databases

\- Importing oil&gas production data from SQL Server, and running calculations in Excel

\- Running SQL queries on large Excel tables created as a result of some screen-scraping</comment>


Where to find a good hacker? - <AUTHOR> I want to know where to find a good hacker. You know, the next Mark Zuckerberg. And I don't mean "good" as in the most technical either, although that is important as well. I mean, where can I find a hacker that understands people too? You may be able to html and css your way through MIT or Stanford, but can you create an application that people actually want, or are capable of using?
Many applications built by hackers are fun, but many people are running around town forgetting a fundamental rule... We're building businesses here (yes I said it). I know that's a dirty word for many hackers, because it takes the novelty out of the work. It's a reality though. If your thingy doesn't have a business model behind it, you will have to rely on VC, and hope you can find a way to make it a business before the cash-money runs out.
I am a business-type (sort of), meaning I have ideas of what end users want, and I think of ways for those ideas to make money. And, I don't know how to build them. So I am in need of a good hacker (based on the explanation above) to help me build a social network that has components loosely related to LinkedIn. (How's that for ambiguous?)  I know YC says find a friend of a friend, but I ain't got no friends.
I completely agree with YC, in that a startup is far too much work for a single individual. That is why I am looking for a hacker to marry. I welcome all comments (as long as they're positive), leads (except your girlfriend's great uncle Harry), website links (to your work), or contact information. Otherwise, I'll be going back to university to study Computer Science or buying a shitload of Hacking for Dummies books. <comment><USER2> (sigh)

Do you bring anything to the table? I mean come on, my mother has ideas AND friends. And she is really a mother-type, not just "sort of" a mother type.

As a non-hacker myself, here's my suggestion:

Figure out the bare-bones alpha version of your idea. Spec it out as detailed as you possibly can.

Now take that doc and pitch it to a developer in your town, in person. Meet them for coffee, buy them a beer, whatever. Just get them in person to pitch them on the idea.

If you can't get a single programmer to meet with you...you're not really a "business-type".

"business-types" can close deals and convince people (yes, even programmers!) to join them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Scott, I do in fact have more than just an idea. Thus far, I have been able to close deals. I bring previous entrepreneurial experience, a solid understanding of business, business plan development experience, a network of management consultants, capital and connections to VC, and perhaps most importantly, a scrappy, fire-in-the-belly desire to bring my idea to market.

I described myself as a "business-type sort of" because I am not a hacker myself, AND I am not a suit. While I understand and very much like business, I wanted to communicate to readers that I am not your traditional NY businessman that wears a three-piece suit and has an aura of Armani cologne.

Thank you for your advice on building an alpha version of the idea, and taking that to programmers. This is the type of feedback I was seeking from my post. I have not tried to convince programmers of my idea yet, so the jury is out on whether or not I am really a business-type.

As a non-hacker yourself, I am curious as to what brings you to the HN forums? I hope you were not offended by satirical post, and I do thank you for your response.

<comment><USER2> The more I learn about programming (I'm slowly teaching myself), the better I can communicate and eventual hack myself.

Plus HN has some of the best tech/biz news around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What on earth does it mean to "html and css your way through MIT or Stanford?" It seems like you're trivializing degrees from top universities, as well as overstating the difficulty of HTML and CSS.

If your ideas are so great, take a few weeks and learn a programming language. Then, build your app yourself. You don't have to be a technical whiz to build something that runs. When you have some users your idea will be validated and maybe people will be more inclined to meet with you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bend, thanks for your response. Clearly you missed the meaning of my satirical tone in my post. For that, I apologize. I was simply trying to evoke a response from the reader so that my post was not overlooked among the hundreds of posts. In that regard, I achieved my goal.

I value greatly degrees from top universities, especially MIT and Stanford. I do understand the difficulty of HTML and CSS, and I am envious of the technical geniuses that are able to build applications using them. My point was that it takes more than excellent programming knowledge to build a useful application for users, AND turn it into a successful business venture. Many programmers are great at building apps, but may not know how to build a successful business from it (Or, they may know exactly how).

I am not stating my idea is great, as I have not pitched it to programmers or users yet. I appreciate your advice on building the app myself though. Another reader suggested a similar idea, and I believe it is a good course of action.

I hope I have conveyed that the tone in my post was merely to illicit a response from readers, and was not intended to trivialize degrees or technical abilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is just a suggestion, but it might make sense to post a CV, a LinkedIn profile, or something similar that gives interested individuals a better sense of who you are and what you're bringing to the table.

</comment><comment><USER5> There _are_ hackers out there looking for a "business guy" to "marry," but... the "business guy" has to bring more to the table than just an idea. If I partnered up with a "business guy" I'd be expecting somebody with some serious chops when it comes to prospecting and selling (and closing!), some useful connections to potential customers, partners and/or investors, and some knowledge of how to do business development and marketing. And if he knows at least a little bit about accounting and taxes, that would be a bonus.

But wanna-be Jack Welches who think their idea alone is enough to stand on, "if I can just find a hacker to build it" are a dime a dozen. So don't be surprised when you don't find a veritable onslaught of hackers lining up to beat down your door.

Anyway, to answer your question "Where to find a good hacker?" Well... there are lots of places. Starting here is a decent bet, but look for meetups in or near your town... if there is a HN meetup, or any technical user-group (Ruby User's Group, Java User's Group, Linux User's Group, Perl Mongers, whatever) go find them and start hanging out with those folks. Use LinkedIn, poke around sites like Quora and the various StackExchange sites... just don't be too obnoxious with the solicitations, or you'll piss off people who might otherwise be willing to help.

CS departments at area universities might give you useful leads as well. But read this:

[http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2010-1...](http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2010-12.html#e2010-12-01T15_45_40.htm)

before calling up CS professors.

Some other food for thought:

[http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2010-1...](http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2010-10.html#e2010-10-28T16_27_55.htm)

[http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/10/05/social- network...](http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/10/05/social-network-the- movie/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Mindcrime, your post has been the most inspirational and informational. Thank you!

I will share these articles (especially the first one from the CS professor) with a lot of my business colleagues. There is an unspoken feeling that "business guys" can never learn to program to implement their ideas. Or, "hackers" are completely inept at understanding business, and should focus only on building their application.

This is the conversation I wish my post would have evoked - the "marriage" of business understanding and technical ability. (Admittedly, my tone may have come across as obnoxious to technical readers, which was not my intent.)

After your post, and comments from other readers, I am much more inspired to gain at least some technical skills to building a working prototype for my idea. While I feel my skills are best suited to pitch the idea, write the business plan, raise capital, sell to potential customers, etc. I feel having the technical ability, to a certain extent, would enable me to execute the idea. Or, if nothing else, give me more credibility among programmers who may otherwise see me as solely an "idea man".

In any regard, thank you for your comment and advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sorry to break the news, but...

"I'm your Winkelvoss, be my Zuckerberg" is NOT a good pitch to hackers.

Or maybe you _are_ just joking?

<comment><AUTHOR> Revorad, your last inclination is correct. As I explained in previous comments, I do bring more to the table than just an idea. Thank you for recognizing the sarcasm, and irony of Winkelvoss and Zuckerberg.

<comment><USER6> Oh good, so you at least have a sense of humour. But you would do better to fill your profile details and be your true person here. Don't hide your identity, don't hide your ideas. Flesh out the details or you will not get the best response possible.

What businesses have you built? Who do you know? Can you name some names? How much cash can you bring to the table? How much PR power do you have? Do you write a popular blog? Can you call someone at the NYTimes or WSJ to get featured?

Details. That's where it's at.

<comment><AUTHOR> I definitely have a sense of humour! That's good advice too, thank you.

My fear (and I know this is common among many entrepreneurs) is to fully lay out an idea for someone, and have Mark say that he is working on the idea for you. When in reality he's secretly building his own application based on your idea.

Maybe it's not so bad to be a Winklevoss. Didn't they receive a $65 million settlement? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Put your email in your profile so people can contact you. Next, check my profile and contact me.

I'm highly skeptical of a 'business type' with no friends, but I'll always entertain what you have to say.

Also, the next Mark Zuckerberg no longer needs an Eduardo Saverin, he can get a server for free from Google, Amazon, or spend $5 a month on a dreamhost account.

You also say that you need a business model, yet reference Zuckerberg. Facebook is the prototypical VC funded company with no business model, until a few hundred million into VC. Yes, Facebook finally found one, and is now profitable. LinkedIn is also VC funded.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fleitz, I thought I had included my email in my profile. I will review your profile and be in touch shortly.

Can you create an application without having any idea of a business model? Sure. But why would you? I am certainly not opposed to VC funding. In fact, it's essential in many cases. I think it's smarter to have a business model in mind behind your application though. That's just my opinion. Anyone is free to disagree. That's what makes these forums so intellectually stimulating.

Good analogy to Mark and Eduardo by the way.

<comment><USER6> The email you put in the email field is not visible to others (bad design, I know). You need to put it in the about field.

<comment><AUTHOR> Got it, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Although I didn't go to MIT or Stanford, I never learnt HTML or CSS in university. No, that's not what a Computer Science degree teaches.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting. Just curious, did you teach yourself HTML and CSS? And what did a CS degree teach you?

I may be interested in learning how to program.

<comment><USER8> Computer science does not equal programming. Yes, programming is a part of computer science but you learn a heck of a lot more from a computer science degree. You learn about algorithms, computational complexity, lots of math, logic and a lot more. You learn how to use a computer to solve hard problems and how to identify patterns in problems that others have already solved. A lot of it is theoretical; you won't be taught how to build a web site.

If you wan't to learn how to program just enough to validate your idea, then perhaps taking a computer science degree might be a little overkill. Read some tutorials and just start programming easy stuff and work your way up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> <http://railsforzombies.org/>

Start there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks dyc, I will be sure to use the site as I try to develop my technical knowledge.</comment></comment>


Chinese TechCrunch Rival 36Kr Is Said to Plan Overseas IPO - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-18/chinese-techcrunch-rival-36kr-is-said-to-plan-overseas-ipo <comment><USER2> I followed 36kr.com from its beginning. In its first 2 years, HN is the source for 80% of the its articles.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't seem very different to most other tech news sites to be honest. Seems like almost every article you read nowadays is sourced from Reddit, Twitter, YouTube or some other social media site.

Probably the same deal with Hacker News in some spheres too.

They've basically become a quick way for journalists to find a story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Crunchbase tracks startups not TechCrunch. Misleading headline.

<comment><USER5> Quality reporting over at Bloomberg :(

Although [https://36kr.com/](https://36kr.com/) seems to be a magazine style website - so maybe it is not totally wrong, just the explanation of what they do is limited to the wrong bit.

<comment><USER4> TechCrunch owns it so maybe that's what confused editor at Bloomberg. But then one can argue that TechCrunch is owned by the Verizon Media group.

<comment><USER5> That's even worse, because Techchrunch hasn't owned them since 2015. They are fully independent as Crunchbase, Inc. since then.

(via [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crunchbase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crunchbase))

<comment><USER6> But its still owned by Verizon through Verizon Media aka (Ex-Yahoo+AOL)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The original name of 36Kr is something like Chinese version of TechCrunch.</comment>


Big Data techniques to prevent terrorist attacks - <AUTHOR> http://iniwall.com/2015/11/30/data-mining-to-fight-against-terrorism/ <comment><USER2> At the same time "The NSA's SKYNET program may be killing thousands of innocent people":

[http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/02/the-nsas-skynet- pr...](http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/02/the-nsas-skynet-program-may- be-killing-thousands-of-innocent-people/)</comment>