Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply to Elite Schools - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2015/03/16/393339590/why-many-smart-low-income-students-dont-apply-to-elite-schools <comment><USER2> As a low-income student who attended an Ivy League university, I'd like to mention one more reason about why low-income students don't apply to elite schools.

They just don't fit in.

I was the best student in my shitty high school and so I applied and happened to get into an Ivy League school. The environment there was so incredibly different I just didn't fit in. Super-preppy good looking kids (they all are thin and tend to look good) who are invariably very well-spoken, totally expectant of all the resources lavished upon them, and just _know_ how to talk to professors and interview for jobs and so on.

I was of a different breed. Ugly, fat, not well-spoken, no idea how to talk to professors, no gutso to challenge a nobel prize winner on his opinion. I was also somewhat shocked with the amount of resources provided to students. For example, for unpaid summer internships my college just gave out $5000 in living expenses so undergrads could do any unpaid internship they wanted. That's about a quarter of what my family earns in a year. Not complaining, of course, but I hope you see how alien this environment was for me. Same was the case with interviews, I didn't have a suit and I had no idea how to bond with an interviewer over our shared love for some exotic sport like skiing.

I just didn't fit in. If I were to do it over again I would pick my Ivy League school again, but I recognize that it is an alien environment. I can totally see why another low-income student would be scared by all this and just not apply.

PS: If I went to a school like MIT maybe my experience would be different. I went to one of YPD, which are traditionally more preppy.

<comment><USER3> >For example, for unpaid summer internships my college just gave out $5000 in living expenses so undergrads could do any unpaid internship they wanted.

What... the... hell? Nobody gave us _anything_ like that at a state school.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, it was the most surprising thing for me as well. Want to do unpaid internship? Here's $5000. Want to start a project in the third world? Here's another $5000. Want to do undergraduate research? Here's $1000 per term to help you out. Study abroad? Here's a plane ticket.

The amount of privilege there is in going to an Ivy League school is incredible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Ivy Leauge admits roughly 20,000 students every year [1]. Lets say they give one fifth of those get free admission. That is a total of 4000 kids which is practically nothing!

Roughly 5 million people are admitted to University every year in the US[2]! So maybe 0.08% of all University students get a free ride at an ivy league. Really this makes no difference except for padding the Ivy League's statistics, its of little to no help for most 'talented low income' highschool students.

[1][http://theivycoach.com/ivy-league-admissions- statistics/](http://theivycoach.com/ivy-league-admissions-statistics/)

[2][http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98)

Edit: To address most of the responses below. I'm implying that even if all appropriate students applied for these programs, as the article suggests, it wouldn't make a difference because some tiny fraction of them would be admitted. There are very few opportunities for low income students unless they are willing to take on the burden of debt. Some lottery that gives a tiny fraction of them free tuition is not a solution, it is offensive to suggest they have opportunities they simply do not have. Fix the broken system, correct tuition costs!

<comment><USER5> Picking arbitrary fractions of the total number of students admitted misses the point. My understanding is that it comes down to school policy: those who are offered admission and accept, but have financial need (demonstrated via the FAFSA, or the equivalent for private universities, if not) are given financial aid proportional to their need. While applying to colleges, I noticed that this is the policy at many universities.

As a result, the ones who get financial aid for tuition are the ones who really need it. Looking at the absolute number of students receiving aid isn't important.

<comment><USER6> Most colleges are moving towards need-blind admissions too, debunking the common complaint that they don't admit low-income students because they'd rather admit students who can pay.

It is also important to note that these types of policies are more common the more elite a university is.

<comment><USER7> > Most colleges are moving towards need-blind admissions too

Need-blind? Like, purely based on merit? I don't think that's helpful. If the point is to help disadvantaged kids, their scores need to be weighted by their circumstances.

<comment><USER8> As far as I understand it, they ignore FAFSA information but could probably still get an idea of the kid's background based on school, personal statements, etc. I'll admit, it sounds like this wouldn't be as effective for helping disadvantaged students. On the other hand, I think it gives schools plausible deniability for admitting a high number of students who wouldn't need financial aid, giving the school more money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me of the story about the high school kids that took on MIT and many other schools in an underwater robot competition and won. This exerpt from the article at the bottom sums it up:

 _During one scene in "Underwater Dreams," the Carl Hayden team members head to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to meet with members of the 2004 team they defeated. The MIT alums talk about their current jobs. Three are involved in underwater robotics, with one headed to a project in Antarctica. Another designs accessories for Apple products.

One student then asks the Carl Hayden team what they are up to.

It's a scene that Mazzio says has made audiences in test screenings uncomfortable.

"It's heartbreaking," she said. "Here you have kids that can compete and that clearly are innovative, that love to build and to fuel the country forward ... We need these kids, and they face these impediments."_

[http://www.azcentral.com/story/life/az- narratives/2014/07/17...](http://www.azcentral.com/story/life/az- narratives/2014/07/17/phoenix-high-school-win-mit-resonates-decade- later/12777467/)

<comment><USER10> > Of the four, only one, Vazquez, has a job in an engineering-related field. > Arcega is attempting to start his own consumer electronics business. > Santillan has a catering business and a job at a restaurant. Aranda is a > janitorial supervisor at the Maricopa County courthouses.

> All four entered the country illegally as children. For three of the four, > their legal status has been an obstacle to entering college or finding > employment.

> "I can't let that get to me," Arcega said, "because that's always going to > be an uphill battle with everything."

Kind of left me hanging so thought I'd add the conclusion in here.

<comment><USER11> Every time I hear these stories I always think to myself, if those guys became engineers, they'd eventually make around $100K. At a modest 20% tax rate, thats 20K a year in revenue for our country.

<comment> barry-cotter What you say is true. What is not true is that those children were typical illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants have low educational background and their incomes will reflect that. They and their citizen children are usually a net drain on the government. Legal immigrants are a different story. If you want to argue for Open Borders go for it but the current US immigration system is a clusterfuck that makes no sense on any level. It's also extremely unlikely to be reformed for many, many reasons.

<comment><USER12> > They and their citizen children are usually a net drain on the government

Do you have a credible source for that? Particularly one which compares the cost to the country of not having cheap labour vs. having cheap labour?

<comment> barry-cotter >The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments, The Congressional Budget Office

>According to available estimates, there are about 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Federal, state, and local governments spend public funds that benefit those immigrants, and those immigrants pay individual income, sales, and property taxes. Most available studies conclude that the unauthorized population pays less in state and local taxes than it costs state and local governments to provide services to that population. However, those estimates have significant limitations; they are not a suitable basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states.

<comment><USER13> Note that that's restricted to state and local taxes vs. spending, it does not include federal taxes and spending, so isn't (aside from the additional explicit disclaimer of utility in the last sentence there) a basis for any conclusion about net impact to government _overall_.

<comment> barry-cotter It may not be terribly strong evidence but it's certainly evidence on the net impact on government. Illegal immigrants do not generally get the kind of high paying jobs it takes to be a net tax payer. As Mitt Romney infamously publicised, they're only 47%. And while adult illegal immigrants probably commit less property crime than citizens, their American citizen children are less law abiding than average.

Illegal immigrants are at best marginal payers into the fisc. They increase competition for land/housing and may have negative effects on labour market outcomes for natives by depressing wages. And they entered your country illegally.

If you want to argue for Open Borders or increased humanitarian immigration go for it. I'm sympathetic if not convinced. Illegal immigrants usually have a massive increase in standard of living. But most of America's illegal immigrants are from Central and South America, and the well educated portions of those countries do not immigrate to the US illegally.

<comment><USER13> > Illegal immigrants do not generally get the kind of high paying jobs it > takes to be a net tax payer. As Mitt Romney infamously publicised, they're > only 47%.

No, Romney didn't "publicize" that net tax payers considering all sources of taxes vs. all costs are "only 47%", he made some false implications based on a claim that about 47% pay no _income_ tax (which was true, even if the implications he tried to make from it were not, if one assumes he was talking specifically about _federal_ income tax.)

But federal income tax isn't the only tax, (or the only federal tax, or even the only federal tax _on income_ ), and the people _not_ paying it aren't only the poor, and who is or isn't paying federal income tax isn't who is or isn't a net tax payer (and, even more clearly, who _isn 't_ paying federal income tax isn't equivalent to who _is_ a net tax payer, which is what your presentation of the meaning of the 47% would claim.)

> But most of America's illegal immigrants are from Central and South America, > and the well educated portions of those countries do not immigrate to the US > illegally.

Sure they do; I've personally met several well-educated professionals who did that were later beneficiaries of the 1980s amnesty, and the fundamental _reason_ why they did hasn't changed since then. For many decades, one of the major sources of illegal immigration from Mexico is that the waiting time in the main family preferences categories is decades long because of per-country limits that guarantee that the supply of visas for qualified, desirable immigrants under the basic purposes of the family-centered immigration policy is perpetually misaligned with demand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It disappoints me that so many commentators on the NPR site infer from the title--"Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply To Elite Schools"\--that the article is essentially bashing "big fancy private college[s]" for being overpriced and not-worth-it.

In contrary, it author/article is trying to find and explain why the above misconception exists.

And it seems as though the people this article would most help don't even read it.

<comment><USER11> Don't worry, NPR already did a story on how many of their commenters don't actually read their articles.

There is also a weird amount of astroturfing in the NPR comment section.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Ivy League has a big problem promoting their financial aid packages. A lot of people don't know that low-income students can attend for free. There is no catch, it really is free, as the article here has mentioned.

The Ivy League needs to do a much better job getting the word out about this to the students who might benefit from it.

<comment><USER15> Most Ivy has means testing calculator that will tell students what their tuition would be.

In the days of internet, I actually found it surprising that many of these brilliant students didn't know that they can get free rides at Ivys.

<comment><USER6> It is interesting that people are talking about the Ivies, not "elite colleges" in general. The article defines a high achiever as "anyone who gets a 29 or better on the ACT or a combined 1,300 on the SAT." At most elite schools (Ivies + MIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc.) a 30 ACT score would be rather below average.

<comment><USER15> I think people lump MIT/Caltech/Stanford into Ivy bucket, even though they're superior to half the Ivies.

You're right about the score. My guess is that these schools have different yardstick for rural + low income factors. And more importantly, they have billions in endowment to be able to 'afford' the fancy yardstick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article hits it on the head with the local counselors and lack of recruiting past certain zip codes. The counselor problem is mitigated a little bit by the internet, but the recruiting is still problematic.

When I graduated in the late 80's, I had score on both tests above what was stated (ND is an ACT state, but I took the SAT also), and a DOE (energy) summer program entrance (1 per state). There was no recruiting and our school had zero resources[1]. Only outside information that got back to me (I wrote several schools for admission information) was Texas A&M with a oil industry scholarship and the state colleges. Went to the state college.

This is one of the reasons I get a bit riled up anytime someone says we have a talent shortage in the US. We have plenty of talent, its just not convenient.

To add insult to injury, my high school counselor screwed up a form that would have given me $2,000 a year scholarship. I was a bit peeved. He was a bit too busy with a rumored side business.

1) including the crap library - couldn't use the library in the next town as it had a nice border to keep the riffraff out. taxes you know.

</comment><comment><USER17> "High-scoring on SAT" (take this as a proxy for "smart"; after all, colleges do) & "low income" correlates well with 3 groups in particular:

1) Recent Asian immigrants

2) Rural whites in flyover country

3) Urban children of (white and Asian) parents in low-paying prestige professions (teachers, museum curators, nonprofits, etc).

<comment><USER18> Teachers are not low-income.

<comment><USER17> Depends on the area and specialty. Adjuncts are notoriously ill paid. North Carolina public school teachers likewise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I still remember the day my father pulled me aside and told me in secret (my mom would have freaked out) that we couldn't really afford college. He recommended that I stayed close to home and to go to a local school, which I did for 4+ years with an average of four hours a day worth of commuting. Occasionally, I also had a part time job that added almost two more extra hours of commuting because it took me to another side of the town and I had to walk half a mile to get to work after getting off the bus.

<comment><USER20> why didn't u get a student loan?

<comment><USER21> So that he didn't have to join Occupy?

[http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-...](http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-111025-loans-7p.grid-6x2.jpg)

Or have we forgotten about that already?

<comment><USER20> haha good point..

actually my friend and i are applying this summer batch of yc with an alternative to student debt financing of university... student equity.. from the student side it helps in 2 ways 1. taxes high income earners more, low income earners less (remember when you start uni you don't know for sure which group you will be in) 2. allows you to transfer future income from your middle-age when your income is higher to when you have just graduated (and income is lower)..

debt in comparison punishes procrastination of payment with interest payments.. it would be great to get your feedback if you have teh chance.. we've posted our draft of our yc application here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487) thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article mostly takes as a given that attending the 'elite' school would be better for these students. There's one quote late in the article, from the article's main source Stanford econ professor Hoxby, suggesting there's a big lifetime earnings-boost after graduating from top schools.

But, the actual story is a bit more complicated. Some research suggests that admitted students _capable_ of attending top schools, who then choose to go to 'lesser' schools, do just about as well. Here's coverage of one such study:

[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting- the-...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of- elite-colleges/)

Also note that the studies supporting big lifetime earnings boosts for either 'college' or 'elite colleges' tend to be based on _graduating_ , not just _enrolling_. Graduation is not automatic, especially among low-income/first- generation admits. A student who chooses a nearer, cheaper, less-prestigous school may be increasing their chances of graduating enough to offset the premiums-conditional-on-graduation elsewhere.

There are some very-credentialist fields where school-prestige is of paramount importance – especially college education itself (graduate degrees/professorships) and some high-dollar finance/consulting/law careers. But there are many other careers, just as attractive to students and society, where college-prestige is far less important. For these, if a student plans to settle back near their hometown, the education and contacts from a locally- respected institution may be as good or better than a far-away prestigious degree.

So one answer to "why many smart low-income students don't apply to elite schools" may be that these students are really quite smart, and do actually know better what's right for them.

<comment><USER23> The very study you linked to actually disproves your comment. For _most_ students, there isn't much of an economic advantage to attending an elite university.

However, as Krueger highlights in the NYT article, for underprivileged students attending a prestigious university _does_ have a significant impact on earnings (even after controlling for ability). So the very students this NPR article is talking about are those who would most benefit from attending a prestigious university.

> So one answer to "why many smart low-income students don't apply to elite > schools" may be that these students are really quite smart, and do actually > know better what's right for them.

Nope. They would almost invariably do better by going to an elite university. Doing so will provide a significant earnings boost, not to mention that it's usually free. Intelligent low income students will usually get the best aid package from an elite university (usually a grant covering tuition, room, and board), thus making that choice cost effective even in the short run.

We need to encourage more low income students to realize that elite universities are a great option for them. On the flip side, middle income students should wake up to the reality that attending a second rate private university is a terrible economic decision.

<comment><USER22> Looking into the 2011 Dale/Krueger study, the "significant" boost for minorities wasn't gigantic and had caveats.

For the attended-in-1976 minority cohort, they found a 6.7% higher income in 2007 for those choosing a more selective – but falling to 1.6% (said by the authors to be "indistinguishable from zero") if the selectivity-outlier historically-black colleges were excluded. For the entered-in-1989 minority cohort, the income boost in 2007 was higher – 12-14%, and survived the exclusion of historically-black colleges. (One way to interpret that might be: the income boost becomes smaller the longer you're out of college.)

Perhaps most interesting: if a student's parents had an average of 12-years education (~high school), selective-attendance gave a 5.2% income boost. But if parents had an average of 16-years (~college), selective attendance gave no income benefits.

But none of these boosts among less-privileged subgroups are very large. The paper also mentions some reasons its estimates of the benefits of selectivity (even where negligible) could be too high, including:

* if selective schools are more generous with financial aid – you and the NPR article both suggest this is the case * if students with high unobserved earning potential are more likely to attend selective schools – seems likely to me, when a student is confident they have the skills, ambitions, or personal contacts to earn a lot post-graduation

So sure, include the Dale/Krueger subgroup estimates in the pitch that selective colleges make. But many low-income students might hear, "you'll get roughly a 5-14% income boost"… and _still_ pass, picking less-selective colleges that match their other academic/community/career/family/friend priorities.

I get why the elite universities want more low-income enrollees: it's a key part of their self-image of outreach & uplift, helps justify their immense costs to others, and immunizes them against other criticisms. But for the low- income students themselves, even given a more-than-zero benefit shown by Dale/Krueger, it's not a slam-dunk decision. When such students choose elsewhere, they may be expressing their own smarts and self-knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Also, this week on This American Life: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/550/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/550/three-miles)

</comment><comment><USER25> The title has the assumption students should be applying to 'elite schools'.

First, Stanford/MIT/... cannot get as many smart students as needed. If the top 10% of US students deserved an elite school, that'd be nearly 0.5M students/year: an impossible number for these institutions.

Secondly, for many students, such education might not be the wisest choice. Fortunately, I went to a local college and had more time to learn things on my own. Instead of going to Psychology classes and studying for finals, I contributed to open source projects and went to hackathons. At Harvard, I would never do these things on my own.

</comment><comment><USER26> It makes a lot more sense once you come to realize that these places aren't about promoting and driving social mobility, and rather they exist to sustain existing positions by strengthening and fortifying class divide. (all the while collecting a nice tithe in the process) In essence, they serve the wealthy by keeping the wealthy, wealthy. They earn their keep in terms of donations for the service they provide.

The few token kids who come from the real world who are given a free ride each year are there just to provide window dressing. Most of them indeed seem out of place, and often have looks of dejection on their faces.

I have some personal experience with the Ivy League and I was really unimpressed. Since choosing a school is such a big gamble, especially in an increasingly competitive world, I don't want to make claims as to what people should do... but...

I really do like the strong public university systems on the west coast. They are actually truly diverse places, and while some may be resource lean, I think they tend to lead to a lot more social mobility.

If you ask me, I think we'd be a whole lot better off if these places weren't unconditionally lent the credibility they enjoy.

</comment><comment><USER27> I worked with QuestBridge during college, and they're making strides towards solving the outreach and awareness problem: [http://www.questbridge.org/](http://www.questbridge.org/)

</comment><comment><USER28> at a NON-Ivy League University, you are unambiguously the best or one of the best students so you can have more authority & get a good job earlier

<comment><USER6> That's true. I actually read a study recently that talked about how every non- Ivy League university admits exactly one high-achieving person: YOU!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply to Elite Schools"

Seems rather self-explanatory, doesn't it? "Elite" schools are typically outrageously priced so unless you (or your parents) have a bunch of money to throw around, accumulating Ivy League debt would seem rather stupid.

<comment><USER21> You clearly didn't read the article.

<comment><USER29> You're actually incorrect, I just did not articulate my point fully (in fact, did a downright bad job) or reread my comment.

When I later reread my original comment my initial reaction was "where did the rest of it go?"

In this same reply thread morgante guided me to enlightenment on the important point left out of my original comment, which I was mistaken about anyhow.</comment></comment></comment>


Same simulator re-written in Python, C, and JavaScript performance comparison - <AUTHOR> https://epxx.co/artigos/pythonopt.html <comment><USER2> Any idea how old this is - I'd like to see how pypy does...

<comment><USER3> All I can say is "very" \- Psyco is ancient, and predates pypy.</comment></comment>


What Happens When a Reasonable Developer Runs Into Aggressive Trademark Lawyers - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/17321115419/what-happens-when-reasonable-developer-runs-into-aggressive-trademark-lawyers.shtml <comment><USER2> What Happens When a Reasonable Developer* Runs Into Aggressive Trademark Lawyers

* A Reasonable Developer with essentially unlimited funds. Notch acts reasonable because he can afford lawyers. Most of us would lose our little company if we were sued.

<comment><USER3> Compared to Zenimax, I'm sure Mojang has very limited funds.

<comment><USER4> I hope that the idiocy of the claims offsets that imbalance. It would be very, very sad if just having heaps money would let you win _any_ case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Confusing things about that blog post:

1\. Is the action being pursued by Bethesda Softworks directly or by its parent, Zenimax? (Guessing Zenimax)

2\. Are they 'suing' Mojang or is this just an aggressive ceast-and-desist action? (Judging from other updated news articles, I'd guess it's the latter.)

3\. I appreciate that ZeniMax might be using a heavy touch here, and we hate lawsuits, and we like Minecraft, but does Notch's paraphrased claim "I don't like trademarks, but I let my lawyers do it anyway, and we almost had to enforce it but only once" really give the principled higher ground?

4\. The trademark "Daggerfall" may have been cancelled in 2008, sounds like a perfect name for Notch's new game :)

<comment><USER4> _"does Notch's paraphrased claim "I don't like trademarks, but I let my lawyers do it anyway, and we almost had to enforce it but only once" really give the principled higher ground?"_

Yes. There is a difference between honest attempts to avoid customer confusion and bullying competition just to cause them trouble (or show the "we're serious about protecting our IP" theatre to investors.) Obviously, some cases may be borderline, but here it is evident who's on which side of the division.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> By responding continually in a reasonable manner, did notch inadvertently make Bethesda's case easier, because now they can show that he somehow agrees with their case?

I'm not saying he does, at all. Just that when lawyers are involved, there's usually a good reason the first advice they give you is to keep your mouth shut.

FWIW, I never made the connection to the game "The Elder Scrolls" until it was made explicit. Shows you just what a weak case they have.

<comment><USER7> He's also telling Bethesda to back off or get assraped by public opinion.

<comment><USER6> By now, I think most consumers have learned that the shenanigans in the games industry aren't easily stopped merely by a change public opinion. Just look at how widespread DRM is these days, and how much worse it's getting for end- users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Isn't Bethesda worried about their corporate brand? I can't imagine them thinking this case would be worth pursuing, at the cost of their actual products.

I originally was pretty excited for Skyrim, but this whole thing is turning me off.

</comment><comment><USER9> This would be like Valve complaining about a game called "Half", or Blizzard complaining about a game called "Craft". Bonkers.

<comment><USER10> If Warcraft & Starcraft had been the first games to use that naming convention, it actually would be pretty reasonable for Blizzard to claim that as a trademark.

Certainly, when I first encountered some other game called <genre>craft, I initially assumed it was a Blizzard title. Maybe that was dumb of me, but I had such a strong association between Blizzard and that type of name. That's exactly what trademarks are all about -- preventing customer confusion.

<comment><USER11> _If Warcraft & Starcraft had been the first games to use that naming convention..._

Weren't they?

<comment><USER10> I think I've read somewhere of an earlier game with the same pattern?

It's a hard thing to search for on google, sadly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> notch also has a reasonable view on piracy and how it effects him <http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works>

</comment><comment><USER13> I know brands tend to go after any and all cases where the IP is even remotely related, but I wonder if this is a concentrated effort by Bethesda as they view "Scrolls" an actual threat, or just a knee jerk reaction to a game they might see as amateur. If the former, it will be interesting to watch the community's reaction to a prolonged legal assault on Minecraft. I know it's causing a big stink in some parts of the internet already.

</comment><comment><USER14> Legal departments should always first check with the marketing department to avoid harming their company like this. They are protecting their brand from what they think might be a takeover by someone else, but are harming it to a much higher degree than a game called "Scrolls" ever could

</comment><comment><USER15> This story annoys me to no end, because it points once again to a seemingly pervasive online and generational sense of entitlement when it comes to things like trademarks and copyright.

While C&D letters are never a nice surprise, Bethesda is right and Notch is wrong.

Given that these both involve computer games _and_ computer games in the same or similar genre, it's entirely reasonable to think that the _average_ consumer would be confused at the titles. (And I have trouble buying the line about the Google search. Even now, "Elder Scrolls" and a link to Bethesda's website shows up in the top 10 results, filter bubble be damned).

The article lacks detail in a way that reads as inaccurate. While it's true you have to protect marks from becoming generic, this involves defending them against all infringers, proving that you've done so, and also proving that you've used the mark in public within a certain amount of time. Which means that Bethesda is only doing what it's required to do to protect their franchise from this exact sort of situation.

While companies like Activision/Blizzard and Ubisoft do things that are of dubious benefit to their customers, I feel like in this case Notch is riling up a large fanbase and positioning this as big-corp versus the little-guy.

This is disingenuous on two levels. One, ignorance and entitlement aren't excuses (just ask Andy Baio and his $35,000 lesson in copyright fair use). Two, Notch is the public face of a company that, by all accounts, is worth millions of dollars.

It's time he started acting like it, educate himself, and put the babe-in-the- woods routine to rest.

PS: I'd also be very surprised if a trademark was granted on a generic dictionary word like "Scrolls."

<comment><USER16> _It's entirely reasonable to think that the average consumer would be confused at the titles._

Serious question: Is "reasonable" being used as some legal term of art here? Because I think it's a totally ridiculous idea that the average consumer would be "confused" because one game is named, e.g. "The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind" and another is named "Scrolls." That doesn't even pass the laugh test.

<comment><USER15> Bethesda has multiple trademarks for the franchise. Each individual installment is trademarked, eg "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" and the entire franchise is trademarked, eg "The Elder Scrolls."

If you (in the collective sense, not you personally) know who Bethesda is and what games they've made in the past and know who Notch is, you're not the average consumer in this context.

I think there's a definite reason to think confusion could come into play when these titles are next to each other on the shelf, or show up in search results with little to no context, or are featured in Amazon's contextual results or on services like XBox Live or Steam.

Parents don't know Notch or gaming history. They know that little Timmy asked for a fantasy game with the word "scrolls" in the title. This situation, which I imagine would be pretty common at Christmas time, is part of why Bethesda is taking action.

The other part -- and this is the much more important part -- is that _Bethesda has no choice._ If they fail to take action and do their due diligence, and a competitor can later prove it (by citing this example with Notch) then they risk losing the mark entirely.

Which means then EA could conceivably come out with a game called "The Younger Scrolls: Obsession" and Bethesda would have no recourse.

<comment><USER17> > _If they fail to take action and do their due diligence, and a competitor > can later prove it (by citing this example with Notch) then they risk losing > the mark entirely._

// They would lose the rights to a trademark "scrolls" but they don't have that mark anyway.

You don't have to protect against people using similar marks unless they clearly are confusingly similar.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Purgatory.rb - Mine Expiring Domains from the Command Line - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mikejarema/purgatory

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm hoping to get some feedback on the value of this script to the community in general. And hopefully one or two forks of the repo.

As a bit more background: I've used the techniques captured in this script to grab a few decent "brandable" domains over the past few years. Eg. namevine.com, dealreel.com, producteer.com</comment>


Jurassic Programmers  - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Jurassic-Programmers-.aspx

<comment><USER2> So, what was the problem? The rock stars, the dinosaurs, the DIBOL technology, the .NET technology, the sales people, the customers, or the PHBs?

I've seen the exact same thing happen more times than I'd care to admit. In every case, my vote goes to the PHBs. Idiots.</comment>


New Bill Proposes NSA Surveillance Reforms - <AUTHOR> https://threatpost.com/new-bill-proposes-nsa-surveillance-reforms/152183/ <comment> java-man chance of passing = approximately 0.0</comment>


Fail safe cloud backups for web based audio recordings via airtape - <AUTHOR> https://airtape.co <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all,

I'm Hamed, the founder of airtape and I'm super happy to announce a new feature. We added multiple backups for audio recordings to make them fail- safe. Every couple seconds the recording will be saved to the cloud in the background.

If you're not familiar with airtape. It's a SaaS product for podcast and interview recording via web browser.

Best, Hamed</comment>


Musical introduction to the cryptology of proxy re-encryption - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuY9WXK61gY <comment><AUTHOR> A talk I gave "off DevCon" with some video game music interludes.</comment>


Bluink Key - <AUTHOR> https://bluink.ca/ <comment><AUTHOR> Didn't see any previous discussion of this product. It's similar to something I was getting ready to build myself, for personal use if not an eventual product. The key feature for me is having my passwords all stored on my phone, and having a simple Bluetooth/USB device that allows an app on the phone to "type" in my credentials into whatever machine the USB is plugged in to. This would allow the use of strong random passwords. U2F seems nice as well. I'm not a security guy. Are there any glaring things I'm missing that make this a bad idea?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the most frustrating part about working as a contractor? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I particularly miss paid holidays, paid vacation (or PTO), and paid sick days. I tell people that I only take off when the office is closed and they won't allow me to work, because if I don't work, I don't get paid.

</comment><comment><USER3> The assumption by employees that your making lots of money so you should be held to some super high standard.</comment>


How to rob an online casino - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/muxcmux/casino-bot

<comment><USER2> You don't rob an online casino with martingale system. You will just lose your money (unless of course you have unlimited balance on your account).

<comment><AUTHOR> And if the casino doesn't have a table limit. But still, you could make a few hundred bucks in the short run if you are lucky :D

<comment><USER3> Perhaps, but house advantage ensures you will keep losing in the long run. The only thing keeping you from a guaranteed win in the long run is the table limit. I ran some simulations a couple of years ago to test some strategies - it was quite shocking to see how common losing 17+ in a row is. Losing 6 in a row is bound to happen every few rounds due to martingale system relying on a lot of 'small' rounds to scrape in winnings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A link to wiki article about the Martingale system involved:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)>

<comment><USER5> It's a really terrible system. The amount of risk to win $1 is astronomical and theoretically unlimited.</comment></comment>


Ask HN Devs: What's up with the expiring pages? - <AUTHOR>

(Not sure if this has been asked/answered before. If it has, can you link me?)
So, I browse hacker news pretty much every day. Thing is, I go about it reasonably slowly while I do other things. So, when I come to change page a few minutes after trawling through the previous one, I find that the link's expired. And then, if that page wasn't the firstage, I have to start from the frontage again to get back through to where I was.
I really just wanted to ask why this is, and why a system like Reddit's (after, or count or something in the URL) isn't used. <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2533105></comment>


India's Meghalaya 'living root bridges' get stronger as the trees grow - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/living-bridges-india-scn/index.html <comment><USER2> I accidentally traveled here when I had a spare month between obligations. I don't think the public can quite imagine how cool these bridges are, and how wild the surrounding region is.

The Root Bridges: For most of them, two people could easily walk hand-in-hand across the bridge (these are substantive, comfortable bridges). To build a bridge requires a multi-generational perspective - oftentimes, the architect won't even live to see the "completed" creation, despite all of the nuanced care. (Of course, a structure like this only evolves, it never "completes.") It should be noted that the locals are masters at building structures of wood. 20m tall towers made exclusively of bamboo (even the twine was bamboo), a 20-30m bridge arching over a river made entirely of bamboo and - at the beginning and end - stronger logs.

The Adventure: I probably encountered 2-3 other white/euro/American/foreigner people here. At one city en route to Meghalaya, I got trapped by a transportation strike, and was told that I was the second white person to spend the night since the British occupation (or something like that). I stumbled into teenagers jamming 70's rock at their school, and they made me play the bass before driving me around the city on their motorcycles. We'd be on pavement going 60km/hr, then suddenly be on dirt going through bamboo structures. They insisted I have dinner at everyone's homes and I ate around 7 distinct meals of regional dishes that night. It was wild: difficult, diverse, different.

<comment><USER3> Travel that doesn't scale is the best kind of travel.

<comment><USER4> I think that applies for many (most?) of the best things in life. Only the mediocre bits can scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Startup idea: GMO trees for rapid, green architecture, like bridges, fencing, simple structural supports. Some species of Bamboo can grow at a rate of up to 1.6in/hour so it may be practical to engineer a wood with the right material properties to grow into trained structural shapes in a span of months, as opposed to decades in the OP.

Hell, I'd love a living bridge in my backyard that I could have grown in a summer or two.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like a fantastic way to create more invasive species of plants that will displace native species.

They introduced gorse to New Zealand as it was good for creating hedges on farms. It's an horrifically invasive plant that's incredibly difficult to get rid of. It's fast growing, with hardy seeds that can lie dormant for 50 years. You clear it out and it just keeps growing back.

It covers 5% of the country, growing practically everywhere outside alpine conditions, and strangles out other species, especially in areas cleared of native forestry. Animals won't eat it because it's spiky, so it needs to be either burned, bulldozed, or cleared with herbicide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm from Meghalaya and the thing that annoys me most is the irreverence that tourists have for these structures and their nearby surroundings. A lot of tourists would litter and step into places they're not supposed to, and make a living hell for the people who maintain these tourist sites. Almost all tourist sites in Meghalaya (especially outside of urban areas) are maintained by the 'shnong' (village) and although they do get some revenue from tourists, it's not necessarily their only source of income. Maybe they should make these places prohibitively expensive to enter so that people would hopefully care more.

*edit: I should add that the entry fee is usually dirt cheap, even free for some places

<comment><USER8> > so that people would hopefully care more.

Why cant the Police enforce the rules and charge a fine for littering?

<comment><USER7> As I said, these places are maintained by the village, so it doesn't fall in the police's jurisdiction. Even if the police were to be involved, I would imagine they still wouldn't be effective because of corruption, apathy, etc.

<comment><USER8> > it doesn't fall in the police's jurisdiction.

Is this some private land where the Police cant go?

If you start talking about corruption then you cannot blame the tourists for littering, people will litter when they know there are not going to be any consequences.

<comment><USER9> One can still "blame" tourists for littering, irrespective of whether cops can enforce the rules or not, because it's a lack of civic sense, a lack of understanding of the importance of preserving such things. That sounds like a good enough reason to point fingers at these tourists.

<comment><USER8> > That sounds like a good enough reason to point fingers at these tourists.

The problem is you will just point fingers and not do anything about it.

<comment><USER9> We are discussing the cultural aspects of these tourists.

<comment><USER8> and I am discussing the cultural aspects of the people living in that state. If they keep on blaming the tourists then nothing is going to change.

<comment><USER9> >>The problem is you will just point fingers and not do anything about it.

How do you know I will not do anything? Do you know me personally? I can do something and still point fingers at the tourists.

My original point was about whether you can blame tourists or not. I see your point that the inhabitants also need to take care of their land, but you seem to have strayed from that discussion into something else.

<comment><USER8> > How do you know I will not do anything?

Just out of curiosity, have you done anything to tackle this issue?

<comment><USER9> This particular issue? No, I stay far from Meghalaya.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The tree mentioned in the article, _Ficus elastica_ is actually a plant that you may already know: it's the fig that is grown indoors as a houseplant, commonly called a rubber tree or a rubber plant.

In general tropical figs are rapid growing but not particularly long-lived plants. A tree may live 80 years, but not much longer than that (this is unpublished data that Charles Handley of the Smithsonian Institution shared with me; he studied cohorts of fig trees for many decades, well into his 80's; possibly the only person who has ever done such a long term study on figs).

</comment><comment><USER11> I saw a documentary on this but I would have sworn it was filmed in SE Asia but I could be wrong. There they were using a related tree also known as the Strangler Fig.

What floored me was a segment where a man was building a new bridge, and almost as a throwaway line the narrator stated that this bridge would be usable by the time his son was old enough to teach his son. That's patience.

But the alternative is dealing with serious flooding and erosion pressures, which these trees have already solved.

<comment><USER12> This part of India is basically SE Asia so maybe you are both right.

<comment><USER13> I'm sure the living root bridge concept doesn't stay within political boundaries, but also yes OP could have seen the faces of the people and not realized that people that look like that live in parts of India.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Ludwig says the techniques used to build the living root bridges could be deployed in cities to green and shade urban areas -- a much-needed strategy to cope with rising temperatures."

Or they could just, plant trees.

I'm not really sure the root bridge concept here helps much more than just planting trees would if we're talking about creating shade.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure about this specific tree, but the problem with similar trees is that the roots grow too much under the sidewalk and raise and destroy it. They are even forbidden to be planted in the sidewalk in some places. Also, the trunks and the aerial roots form a big messy block that is 6 foots wide and make the sidewalk unusable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "could help our cities adapt to rising temperatures associated with the climate crisis"

What? No. In cities a living root bridge would be destroyed within a year.

<comment><USER17> I had the same thought. What a strange conclusion to draw from this.

<comment><USER18> I think it can be rephrased as "we're desperate for any possibly glimmer of hope in the face of this existential climate crisis, and fantastical solutions let us imagine the possibility of surviving - no matter how impractical (in fact, the more impossible, the better)"

<comment><USER17> We don't need impractical solutions that make no sense. We need solutions that will actually help us solve problems. Growing trees in skyscrapers to make bridges that take decades to create to maybe make the sidewalk cooler is 1) impractical and 2) not solving a real problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A general jumping-off point for this idea: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping)

It's a very cool concept, similar to sculpting bonsai trees with copper wire, just on a bigger scale. However unless it can reliably conform to civil engineering specs, it's useless outside of an artisan project.

<comment><USER20> Unless you, you know, decide not to care about that set of specs.

<comment><USER21> Those specs are for a reason. Not conforming to them causes loss of life and limbs.

A plant bridge is nice and dandy until it falls on your head

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just wait until the Instagram influencers discover and destroy it.

<comment><USER23> already happening

<comment><USER24> damn human your scary

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What happens when the tree dies? While some trees have lived for a very long time, my impression is that 100 years is a very long time for a tree, and if a bridge takes "decades" to build, then 100 years might not be relatively that long.

A typical modern bridge might take 5 years to build 7-8km and will last as long as people care to use and maintain it.

A 20 metres living bridge will takes at least 2-30 years (less wouldn't count as decades, plural) and would live for how long?

Above pessimism aside, I would love to cross the river thames on a living bridge!

<comment><USER26> 100 years is the blink of an eye for a tree. Trees will astound you if you learn more about them. Many species can live for tens of thousands of years; beneath the surface, some apparent "groves" are in fact interconnected appendages of a single living organism which can survive for hundreds of thousands of years.

<comment><USER27> > 100 years is the blink of an eye for a tree

That's a _very_ slow blink.

Being generous and for easy math, let's say the tree lives 100,000 years.

100 years is 1/1000th of the lifetime, .001.

Generally the blink of an eye is in reference to human time scales. Again, let's be generous and say a blink takes an entire second, and a human lives 72 years. 1 / (72 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60) = .0000000004

Many orders of magnitude off from the blink of an eye.

<comment><USER28> [https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+blink+of+an+eye](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+the+blink+of+an+eye)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've been here before. They're pretty sturdy to walk on and there were quite a few in the area going into town.

One thing that I found interesting was the only bridge that had trouble was it's parent tree on one side of the bridge was hit by the monsoons in the area. The area has one of the highest amount of rainfall in the world.

The area is pretty remote still. I was there 3 years ago and as I was walking on my path I realized the road I was walking on had been built the week before.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's 4000 steps down & up 2 hills to get there. You are going to have cramped out legs & also drenched with the sun out. But it was an amazing experience.

</comment><comment><USER31> I had a similar idea about green roofs and how they could have a net positive effect on happiness, liveability and energy efficiency in cities.

</comment><comment><USER32> Another article: [http://humanplanet.com/timothyallen/2011/03/living-root- brid...](http://humanplanet.com/timothyallen/2011/03/living-root-bridges-bbc- human-planet/)</comment>


Spreading the gospel of entrepreneurship in the developing world - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11848444 <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting (as well as recurrent) property of the developing world, notably different from the developed world:

"If Endeavor had been an investor, rather than an independent, objective, non- profit enabler, it would not have been trusted by the business elite, or the entrepreneurs," she insists. "Trust is everything."</comment>


DEF CON 20 Capture The Flag next saturday, June 2nd - <AUTHOR> https://www.defcon.org/#dc20ctfquals

<comment><AUTHOR> Which, by the way, is just the same day as the Internet Problem Solving Contest (IPSC), <http://ipsc.ksp.sk/></comment>


Find Yourself a Hobby for 2020 - <AUTHOR> http://findyourselfahobby.com/ <comment><USER2> Visit tiny museums.

I stumbled across this hobby a few years ago. Whenever I'm in some place new, I run a search on google maps for "museums" and try to find the smallest, most niche topic possible.

It's a pretty small time commitment - a small museum can often be explored in 30-60 minutes - and it's incredibly rewarding.

The smaller the museum is, the more likely you'll meet the person who set it up. And that's guaranteed to be a great conversation no matter what the subject of the museum is.

A couple of months ago I started a website to share details of the museums I've explored. So far I've managed to post a new one every day, and I've still got a backlog of about 50.

[https://www.niche-museums.com/](https://www.niche-museums.com/)

<comment><USER3> You are on to something! I do this too.

Here's what comes to mind...

* Mutter Museum in Philly ([http://muttermuseum.org/](http://muttermuseum.org/)) Awesome victorian medical curiosities

* Museum of Questionable medical devices in St Paul ([http://www.museumofquackery.com/](http://www.museumofquackery.com/)). Exactly what the name implies. Really interesting for skeptics.

* Wagner Free Institute ([http://www.wagnerfreeinstitute.org/](http://www.wagnerfreeinstitute.org/)), in Philly. This is victorian-era science museum focusing on natural history. Interesting selection of specimens and a magnificently preserved victorian lecture hall.

* Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto ([http://batashoemuseum.ca/](http://batashoemuseum.ca/)). Shoes are actually interesting in historical context!

* Johnstown Flood Museum ([https://www.jaha.org/attractions/johnstown-flood-museum/](https://www.jaha.org/attractions/johnstown-flood-museum/)) This is in western PA, about 1.5 hours east of Pittsburgh. Dedicated mostly to the flood of 1889 which shaped the history of this town, as well as the flood of 1977.

* National Electronics Museum ([https://www.nationalelectronicsmuseum.org/](https://www.nationalelectronicsmuseum.org/)) This is a short distance from the BWI airport.

<comment><USER4> Never heard of the National Electronics Museum but I am from the area, I will check that out!

The Cryptography Museum nearby is also great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My favorite hobby is studying history. There are still so many major mysteries. A person can make real discoveries, just with a kindle and search engine.

I've started reading Latin texts, _so many of which are not translated_ , with alpheus reading tools. For instance, Descartes' first book has never been translated.

I'm so curious about the concept of harmony through history. Everyone talked about it, but it was also quite mysterious, wrapped up in esoteric mystery.

Shwep.Net is helps synthesize many sources for studying ancient philosophy.

</comment><comment><USER6> When nearing your final resting place and contemplating all the rich intricacies of your life, do you want to be one of those people who didn't learn to juggle? No. That would be silly.

So take up juggling!

Aside from obvious things like becoming more coordinated and increasing your spatial awareness, it will teach you a lot about learning. It's fascinating when a challenging new pattern moves from deliberate and entirely conscious effort to straddling the conscious/unconscious divide until it gets bedded in to your nervous system and you can do it without thinking.

Juggling is almost entirely non-competitive and jugglers are overwhelmingly supportive and eager to teach and learn new tricks from each other. It doesn't seem to be possible to get into it without also wanting to teach anyone who wants to learn. There aren't many egos getting in the way, which I find rather pure and beautiful.

Contemporary juggling is hugely varied. You can go from technical and accurate numbers jugging (high number of objects) to flowing improvised moves to something that is as much dance as circus stuff.

Also siteswap[1], a notation for juggling patterns, is cool!

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

<comment><USER7> a juggling illusion i learned is juggling 4 balls is really just juggling 2 in each hand.

you can also juggle bouncing off the floor, lighter objects (scarves, tissues), various patterns (above instead of under, 1 up 2 up) and if really adventurous try while unicycling!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Help the elderly, visit the lonely, feed the hungry.

Maybe it's because I'm in my midlife crisis, but as I think how much time I put into hobbies I wonder how much good I could have done in the same time.

But creating music, build scale models, growing cactuses, watching movies is a lot of fun. And people need time to relax and enjoy life.

<comment><USER9> And you can combine these things; I've got a musician friend who organizes musicians to go to the local VA hospital once a month to play for the patients. It does everybody a world of good.

My family makes a point to look after others in the church we're part of, generally by inviting them over for dinner and/or by bringing gifts of food.

Music-making and cooking are two hobbies that share really well, but you can do just about anything together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Woodworking. What's cool about this is that it can scale with the amount of space/money you have to dedicate. Start building little boxes, you can do it with just a Japanese have saw and some glue, maybe some clamps. Stain it to make the grain really pop.

If you have a garage, start with a work bench build. Design it with 2x4 lumber and carriage bolts, make it your own. Once you're standing at your new workbench, then the inspiration really starts going.

Also YouTube has an endless supply of quality woodworking videos.

</comment><comment><USER11> Grow mushrooms. It's incredibly rewarding and intellectually stimulating - even if you're like me and don't care for the taste. We are on the cusp of a cultural transformation in how we view, study and use fungi for the benefit of mankind.[0] It's so much more than psychedelics, although profound in its own right.

[0] [https://fantasticfungi.com/](https://fantasticfungi.com/)

<comment> brian-armstrong Watch Joe Rogan.

<comment><USER12> In particular the episodes with Paul Stamis who runs fungi.com

<comment><USER13> Paul Stamets

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm rather fond of the _many_ DIY engineering hobbies that some people focus extremely deeply on. Air cannons were a big interest of mine back in 2009 or so: [https://www.spudfiles.com/](https://www.spudfiles.com/)

Someone put a (rather primitive) air cannon simulator I wrote on GitHub: [https://github.com/cli-mongrel/bags](https://github.com/cli-mongrel/bags)

And before then I was in to homemade water guns, e.g.: [http://www.sscentral.org/homemade/supercannon2.html](http://www.sscentral.org/homemade/supercannon2.html)

I built that when I was a teenager as I recall.

Another example that I never participated in: [http://www.pulse- jets.com/phpbb3/index.php](http://www.pulse-jets.com/phpbb3/index.php)

I'd love to get better at machining so I could make some small jet engines like those folks.

I'm similarly impressed by people who modify cars, build wind turbines, etc., etc.

If there are any particular hobbies along these lines that you find interesting, I'd love to hear about them!

<comment><USER15> Heh, haven't seen SF mentioned in quite a while, definitely recognize your username from there though. You should still try a pulse jet project if you have the space for it! The last time I built one it only required an angle grinder and small mig welder(+a spot welder improvised from a broken microwave, purely optional though).

Or... I do remember a neat how-to from Colin furze(youtube) for making a turbojet using only a hand drill and grinder. It wasn't exactly pretty but it definitely ran.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Learn knitting and allow yourself to be meditatively bored instead of always opening HN for something to read.

<comment><USER17> Yet opening HN for something to read may be a hobby in itself because it opens doors to all sorts of interests. Including this thread and all of its useful ideas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Grow weed. You can stop smoking it but you will never stop growing it.

<comment><USER19> How do you go about starting growing though? I feel like I could be interested but it seems like something that's hard to start without the know-how.

<comment><USER20> There's a nice reddit community[1] dedicated to small-scale indoor growing. The sidebar has a lot of info to get you started and it's relatively inexpensive. Just be sure to check your local laws regarding cannabis cultivation and educate yourself on any potential risks.

[1] [https://old.reddit.com/r/microgrowery/](https://old.reddit.com/r/microgrowery/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Lockpicking is both relaxing and challenging, and oh so rewarding when you succeed.

<comment><USER22> Try getting a set of impressioning tools for tubular locks... they're like $30 and so fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Start a journal. Put your thoughts in order on a daily basis, and when you look back at the end of 2020 (or beyond..) you'll have something interesting to read and reflect on.

<comment><USER24> I think I'm going to try this one out this year. I attempted at doing a weekly log but had only had a ~40% completion rate.

Any tips on staying motivated? I mostly would enter it into evernote, and as lazy as it sounds sometimes my biggest barrier of entry would be opening my laptop heh.

<comment><USER25> 1\. Make it part of your routine. For instance, make it a weekly habit to have coffee on Sunday morning and update your journal. If you pair writing with another routine activity, (especially an activity that you enjoy doing) then you'll be more likely to complete it.

2\. Hang a wall calendar in a high-visibility location and put a sticker/tally mark for every week that you successfully log. It's an easy visual reminder of your progress, and it can bug you if you don't log for a week.

3\. This may not be the advice you want, but not logging for a week isn't the worst thing - it's okay to have a week now and then where nothing of note really _happens_.

<comment><USER24> 1\. Yeah I think I need to shift my time. Originally I aimed for Sunday evening/night since I considered it the end of the week. At that time I found myself to tired or caught up in another activity more often than not. Sunday morning sounds better, especially as a way to get it "out of they way".

2\. That sounds like a good motivator!

3\. True true

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> When starting a new hobby, I'd look on Reddit, not Wikipedia.

</comment><comment><USER27> My favourite is the first suggestion I received: Rock Thumbing[0]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumble_finishing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumble_finishing)

<comment><USER28> I didn't know it existed and it looks fun and zen, too bad I live in an appartment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Haven't seen metalworking on that list. It's amazing how far you can get with a vise, saw, files, drill and pliers. And it's also amazing how quickly you feel then need for actual machines and order a lathe and mill :|

If you are space-constrained you can also make jewelry, which can be a lot like machining, just a lot smaller. Also it's amazing how your view of metal als "very solid" changed once you take a graver and move it around by hand.

</comment><comment><USER30> Flying planes, well .. I hope I'll find some good written tutorials on HN

<comment><USER31> Fly twice a week, if you can't afford that, fly once a week, if you can't afford that save money until you can.

Right rudder, right rudder.

<comment><USER32> If the goal is getting a license I usually recommend 3 times a week.

But there is something to be said about folks that go up just once a month with their instructor and enjoy the lessons. As long as the monthly experience is the goal and not a license anytime soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I already have a lot of hobbies. So much so that at any given time there's just a "core" set of hobbies I can indulge in and my various hobbies flit in and out of this set depending on the circumstances.

For this year, I want to go for depth rather than breadth. For instance:

\- I can already play the guitar reasonably well so how about going into music theory next?

\- I can draw well but I've been mostly drawing portraits and human figures. So how about still lifes and sceneries? Or draw with color as so far all I've been doing is elaborate sketching.

\- Maybe finally learn Copperplate.

\- After doing Taekwondo since 2004, I recently just picked up boxing and kickboxing. Definitely a lot to learn here still, and even more to integrate from TKD! I wanna get good form on my head movement, get that explosive technique on my punches, throw all my body weight into my hooks, etc.

On to another decade of curiosity, I guess. :)

</comment><comment><USER34> My hobby is playing Minecraft and the first suggestion was Minecraft. Well played!

</comment><comment><USER35> It's a really cool idea because hobbies are nice to recharge. But the website should have more functions to customize.

Because hobbies are a really personal thing and at least I must really identify with what I'm doing.

</comment><comment><USER36> Not that anybody cares, but here's what I've been wanting to do for hobbies:

Add some more physical hobbies. Rock climbing/bouldering, swimming/surfing, hike more often. Maybe even yoga. Right now I lift weights and jog on treadmills but I want more diversity. And I need more sun.

Start playing a competitive game again. Used to be into chess, Starcraft 2. I think this helps me decompress better than most other activities.

Read on my morning commute (25m train ride). Right now I mostly just browse the internet.

Work on a mobile game. Very bootstrappable side gig and I know little about front end.

<comment><USER37> > Not that anybody cares

I think you would be surprised at the number people interested in something like this.

When I read this, I saw a little of myself in you. I am fairly into bouldering, hiking and have tried, unsuccessfully, to get into the competitive video game scene.

Yoga stuck out to me when reading your comment. I have received invitations to come try yoga but have never gone. I am going to add it to my list of New Year resolutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Argentine Tango! I used to need 3 or 4 drinks to get near a dance floor. Never mind the gut wrenching fear of asking a woman to dance. Now I teach tango. Nothing like midlife to shake things up.

</comment><comment><USER39> >It looks like you have a lot of time on your hands.

>Why don't you try this hobby instead: Medieval reenactment

Ha! I already do, I'm a member of the SCA.

</comment><comment><USER40> I live between 44° and 45° N in New England and I want to design a greenhouse that can keep itself above freezing year round without using electricity from the house.

So if I can do some cool solar pv hydronic heat tank thing, that's ok, or use giant coils of air tubes deep within the earth to steal ambient heat, or whatever tricks look good... I want to give it a shot!

</comment><comment><USER41> Do video games count as a hobby? I just realized that nothing else really holds my interest and I'm now very worried.

<comment><USER10> I would say as long as it's not interfering with the rest of your life, it's perfectly fine. The breadth of quality games available in this era is really remarkable. To be able to explore that universe and have real experiences is perfectly worthwhile.

Where I think it becomes problematic is when the focus is on exactly one game, especially ones with online gameplay with toxic communities. In those cases you should ask yourself if you might be part of the toxicity cycle (not always the case, but worth some introspection).

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> My first two suggestions were "Car racing" and "Trying free samples at Costco". Ok, lol.

<comment><USER43> f1 is pretty cool. I got a lot more into it this year. Try to watch some races with an open mind.

<comment><USER42> I'm happy watching races, but I'm not going to _do_ it.

<comment><USER44> If you change your mind, this is a great way to get out on a race track with whatever you're driving:

[https://www.tracknightinamerica.com/](https://www.tracknightinamerica.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brian-armstrong Related: 50 Things to Experience Before You Die [https://youtu.be/O42LGKRtd0M](https://youtu.be/O42LGKRtd0M)

<comment><USER45> Inadvisable

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Origami is awesome too

</comment><comment><USER47> I build furniture in my spare time. Assuming you have the room for it, enough to build a proper shop, it's the greatest meditative hobby I've found.

</comment><comment><USER48> Build scale models. It's fun and addicting to do.

</comment><comment><USER49> Lindy Hop. 15 years in and I still enjoy it.

<comment><USER50> And you can easily branch out into related Swing Dances (and Solo Jazz). Currently I'm into Balboa.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I love running, drawing, and photography!

</comment><comment><USER52> Football.... that's so vague!

<comment><USER45> Play professional football in the NFL!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> >Car restoration

Apparently not only do I have free time, but also free money and free garage space.

<comment><USER12> Note that these are suggestions...

<comment><USER54> also.. could just restore old tonka toys or matchbox cars

Tonka: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyWxgkQ_3OM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyWxgkQ_3OM)

matchbox: [https://www.youtube.com/user/pso316a](https://www.youtube.com/user/pso316a)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Guns and shooting, a right not exercised is a right lost.

Ham radio, use your spectrum before the FCC auctions it off.

<comment><USER56> About 5 years ago I tried to talk my kids into ham radio. We were all going to get licenses and buy radios but I couldn't sell it.

<comment><USER37> By 'couldn't sell it' do you mean that your kids were uninterested?

<comment><USER56> Exactly.

<comment><USER37> That's a shame.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An 'extraordinarily severe' emergency: the radioactive leak at Harborview - <AUTHOR> http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/06/an-extraordinarily-severe-emergency-the-radioactive-leak-at-harborview/ <comment><USER2> The International Atomic Energey Committee who is tasked with investigating this kind of accident has many reports on accidents including irradiators. It seems that these are not uncommon (as radiation accidents go), probably because the radioactive sources in irradiators are made to be moved about and occasionally transported, much more so than, e.g. the radioactive fuel in reactors, or even weapons.

Lax standards or just changing circumstances such as an owner moving or going out of business (or collapsing entirely, like in the case of the USSR) has caused accidents, in the past.

A famous example is the accident in Goiânia, in Brazil, in 1985. In short, a private radiotherapy institute moved house leaving behind a working caesium 137 teletherapy unit with the source still in it. Two people took parts of the unit, broke them apart and sold them to a scrap yard. The owner noticed the blue glow of the strange salt-like substance in the unit and took it home and showed it to his friends and family. People became fascinated with the sight and took fragments of it to their homes where their kids and family played with it. Eventually, someone connected the fact that people were getting sick with the strange glowing stuff and took a sample to the public health department. This led to the accident being discovered.

Some 250 people were contaminated and four died while others suffered radiation sickness, but fortunately recovered. Lest this be taken as evidence of the low risk from such accidents let it just be said: you don't want your kids playing with sparkly blue radioactive stardust.

IAEA accident report here:

[https://www.iaea.org/publications/3684/the-radiological- acci...](https://www.iaea.org/publications/3684/the-radiological-accident-in- goiania)

<comment><USER3> This is interestingly similar to the Star Trek episode "Thine Own Self" where there is a village similarly interested in radioactive material.

<comment><USER4> TNG, with an amnesiac Data and a blonde girl. The town people are not very advanced and turn against him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a radiology resident at UW and we haven't really heard much about this event. Harborview is a phenomenal hospital, and (in my opinion) the best one in the UW system. The University has a pretty good track record of admitting fault, even when it costs the system millions. See: [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/uw- medicine...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/uw-medicine- mistakenly-exposed-information-on-nearly-1-million-patients/)

UW Medicine itself is not doing well financially (they lost $75 million last year): [https://www.washington.edu/regents/files/2018/01/2018-02-B-2...](https://www.washington.edu/regents/files/2018/01/2018-02-B-2.pdf)

Harborview was the only profitable hospital in the system. Seattle is the second-largest tech city in the nation and housing prices have grown astronomically, just like in SF. The difference between UW and, say, Stanford or UCSF, is that UW's patient population comes from the WWAMI states. They don't typically treat the young tech works, although I have had a couple older Boeing/Microsoft patients. UW/Harborview patients continue to be mostly low- income Seattlites and tertiary care/trauma patients from the WWAMI states. The UW takes care of poor/rural patients while existing in a wealthy city. It's a unique place to work.

EDIT: I asked my fellow radiology residents about this event

"We had a nuc med lecture on the event! It's super interesting how they managed it."

"We had a separate nuclear medicine lecture on a Tuesday by the woman who helped managed the incident and is responsible for nuclear accidents."

"Was on HMC call that night. Physics lecture on that was useful. Radiation --> reflex call radiologist is a real thing."

"Cool. Honestly they should just reflex call them. I just paged them anyway."

"3.6 roentgens per hour. Not great, not terrible."

<comment><USER6> >"3.6 roentgens per hour. Not great, not terrible."

Is that a "Chernobyl" (HBO miniseries) reference? (Protip: watch it)

<comment><USER7> It definitely was.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thank you, Capitol Hill Seattle (and Margo Vansynghel in particular!), for real investigative journalism that the major Seattle papers and news outlets haven't done on this story.

I have minor quibbles on the facts, and with some of the tone of the story, but I'm glad to see that a journalist was able to put in the time to research and write a long-form story about which the Seattle community will care.

For the commenters lining up to throw stones -- we all find in time that our own homes are made, at least in part, of glass. It is intrinsic to any accident that at least one mistake was made, but discerning how and why the mistake came to pass almost always takes longer than anyone would like. Throwing stones too early often means that they will miss their mark, becoming mistakes of their own.

 _Edit: crediting Margo Vansynghel, the article 's author_

<comment><USER9> Criticizing people with the use of hindsight is one thing, but if "this is unacceptably risky" would have been the right response to the planned procedure beforehand, then it is still valid afterwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For context: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident)

> The Goiânia accident [ɡojˈjɐniɐ] was a radioactive contamination accident > that occurred on September 13, 1987, in Goiânia, in the Brazilian state of > Goiás, after a forgotten radiotherapy source was taken from an abandoned > hospital site in the city. It was subsequently handled by many people, > resulting in four deaths. About 112,000 people were examined for radioactive > contamination and 249 were found to have significant levels of radioactive > material in or on their bodies.

> In the cleanup operation, topsoil had to be removed from several sites, and > several hundred houses were demolished. All the objects from within those > houses, including personal possessions, were seized and incinerated. Time > magazine has identified the accident as one of the world's "worst nuclear > disasters" and the International Atomic Energy Agency called it "one of the > world's worst radiological incidents".

<comment><USER11> How does incinerating a contaminated radioactive object help clean up the accident?

That sounds like a "Dilute the pollution by pouring it into the ocean" solution. Isn't burial the better option?

<comment><USER12> Dilution is the solution to pollution.

For radioactive isotopes with moderate half lives (that are not produced industrially in serious abundance), this actually works.

<comment><USER10> With dilution, for ~rapidly decaying isotopes, nobody arguably gets more than a _de minimis_ dose. Comparable to a chest X-ray, transcontinental flight, etc.

But that doesn't work for isotopes that bioaccumulate, and get concentrated up the food chain. Especially if that happens faster than radioactive decay.

A good example is plutonium production. Back in the 40s-60s, they'd dissolve irradiated uranium in nitric acid. With remote manipulators, behind massive steel/lead/concrete shielding. But two of the major fission fragments are gases at processing temperatures: Xe-131 and I-131. So they just blew that up the stacks.

Xe-131 stable, but inert, so dilution is arguably OK. Although the I-131 half- life is only ~8 days, animals bioaccumulate it _very_ effectively. Also, it's concentrated in milk.

In designing Hanford, scientists did a risk assessment for I-131 releases. They got that releasing I-131 was risky when the wind was blowing westward, toward coastal cities. But when the wind was blowing eastward, no problem. Especially because, for commercial milk production, delay from deposition on fodder to milk sales is (as I recall) on the order of weeks.

However, they didn't consider subsistence farmers living around Hanford, raising cattle and goats for milk. For them, delay from deposition on fodder to milk consumption is on the order of days. Oops. So a bunch of people (mainly children) developed thyroid disorders and cancer.

I could tell a similar story about radioisotope releases from above-ground testing. Which increased incidence of thyroid disorders and cancer throughout the US. But I'll just share the false assumption.

Nuclear explosions inject crap into the lower stratosphere. Where it floats, just above the stratopause, driven by the jet stream. So there's not much dilution, just movement. And then, somewhere, there's an intense thunderstorm, which punches convection into the lower stratosphere. If that happens to intersect a mass of radioactive crap, it comes down right there. Almost as if the explosion had occurred right overhead.

Who would have thought? If you're interested, you can find maps online that show deposition patterns for all of the above-ground test series.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It sounds like the removal of the vial was done on-site for somewhat reasonable reasons, but in the future they ought to have a temporary structure erected during removal so that if something happens, the dust doesn't get blown and tracked everywhere. Doing this in a shipping container would have avoided all of these problems and most of the exposure to people as well.

<comment><USER14> From the article:

"International Isotopes contractors had set up a secure steel "chamber" wherein they would perform a crucial, most perilous part of the operation: removing the capsule with cesium-137 from the irradiator."

The problem is they didn't realise it had happened straight away. They only discovered the leak later, when performing a routine wipe-down check of the area. There are still details missing though, like how come they didn't perform the wipe-down check before opening the chamber? Or did they? As the article says, it's not clear exactly what happened.

<comment><USER15> I'm curious how you don't know that you cut into the capsule. It's supposedly a white powder, wouldn't it make a cloud?

Also if this is possible wouldn't you put sone contingencies in place, like mount the grinder on limited travel arm or something? Sound's like they just went at it with a $30 DeWalt.

The whole thing seems kind of ridiculous.

<comment><USER16> When you're grinding there's significant metal and abrasive dust thrown into the air. Given the airflow they generate and how fine the radioactive powder is even a small nick in the capsule could end up with a lot of material in the air without you noticing it.

A jig to limit grinder motion sounds like really cheap insurance to prevent this failure mode.

<comment><USER17> I'm curious if the capsules like this are standardized or one-off. The description of the tungsten plug makes it sound like the latter.

In which case a more sane procedure would probably mandate some examination of the capsule, formulation of a plan off-site, then implementation of said plan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A decommissioning process that involves bringing cutting tools very near to the capsule of very dangerous stuff sounds like a bit of a design flaw?

<comment><USER19> Maybe they never considered decommissioning in the design. Which itself would be a pretty severe flaw.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps the main focus is making it extremely difficult to access the radioactive material. So, no locks or anything that easy, you weld the thing shut. Makes it harder to decommission, but also makes it harder to steal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> >This could destroy the careers of people who have been working their entire lives on research meant to save lives and improve public health and hospital outcomes

That is devastating for the researchers.

<comment><USER22> Happened on my campus. Freezers even had temperature alarms monitored by the university police, but no one reacted to the alerts. Among other things, an 80 year longitudinal study was lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> In looking for the construction of the capsule I found this article about a similar contamination issue with Cesium. Reading through the Events section that discovers theft and attempts at recovering the Cesium because of its blue glow are mind blowing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident#Events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident#Events)

<comment><USER23> Thanks for sharing. Makes one think about all those efforts to come up with a way to make nuclear waste sites look scary for millenia. Of course, you could just bury it somewhere and not leave a mark, but that's no fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why is the cleanup crew not wearing safety gear? Given how easily the cesium powder disperses in the air, at the very least, I would want a mask to prevent the cesium from entering my lungs.

<comment><USER24> Costs over safety. If a regulation isn't enforced, it will likely be forgone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder why they named the picture 'Tsjernobyl-1.jpg'.

[https://i2.wp.com/www.capitolhillseattle.com/wp- content/uplo...](https://i2.wp.com/www.capitolhillseattle.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/Tsjernobyl-1.jpg?fit=1700%2C832)

<comment><USER26> Even more bizarre, the gallery page for that picture has a slug of "on-the- list-before-stonewall-film-ginsberg-poetry-festival-at-volunteer-park-seattle- poetry-slam": [http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/06/on-the-list- before...](http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/06/on-the-list-before- stonewall-film-ginsberg-poetry-festival-at-volunteer-park-seattle-poetry- slam/tsjernobyl-1/) (and the image is titled "Leak 2"). There are other interesting images in that gallery that aren't on the article (or perhaps are visible only if you have javascript enabled).

<comment><USER27> SEO is my first inclination

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> According to the NRC notice, it's a JL Shepard Mark 168A

[https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event- status/...](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event- status/event/2019/20190510en.html)

There's some pictures of a similar device here:

[https://www.bnl.gov/nsrl/grsf/](https://www.bnl.gov/nsrl/grsf/)

It doesn't show why you'd need a grinder to take it apart, though.

</comment><comment><USER29> About half of this machine's radioactive material leaked into the immediate vicinity after the radioactive source was removed from a larger machine as part of routine decommissioning.

<comment><USER30> Basically equivalent to a dirty nuclear bomb going off with an under-powered dispersing mechanism. That building is not easy to clean up if at that is at all possible.

<comment><USER31> Cesium-137 cleanup isn't especially difficult compared to some other radioactive agents. A rather painful vigorous scrubbing (speaking from experience) is effective for external exposure and Prussian Blue is a moderately effective antidote for internal exposure that will likely prevent loss of life. No radiation contamination is "safe" and Cesium-137 is particularly nasty, but cleanup is definitely possible without long term effects (like at the Chernobyl site) generally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Reading this I realise that the idea of "Health and Safety" is a good one. Make a plan for the bad things that could happen and you just follow the plan - "Action On" it is called in the mklitary I believe

The bit where someone asks "did you turn off the HVAC in the building once the radioactive particles went airborne?" is a classic example.

</comment><comment><USER33> It doesn't seem ideal to require cutting to remove a radioactive capsule. If done for security, a lock seems better.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is a well researched article. Although mistakes can be made it's a bit puzzling that there was so much miscommunication. Maybe too many orgs involved. That Seattle fire department wasn't even informed beforehand seems clumsy.

<comment><USER35> It seems like the miscommunication was intentional, but that's just my interpretation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Things were far from being back to normal, however. That the HVAC system was > shut off to prohibit the cesium from spreading through the building was a > good thing. But as it stayed off, in the days after the leak, the building > started to heat up. Which meant the freezers in the building, which keep > research specimen at -80°C, had to work harder to stay cool. Some were > failing. Important research samples were in danger.

> "Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, labor, and samples are > being lost on a daily basis. This could destroy the careers of people who > have been working their entire lives on research meant to save lives and > improve public health and hospital outcomes," an anonymous source told KIRO.

> UW/Harborview personnel moved the contents of some units to other freezers > nearby about a week after the spill, said Susan Gregg of the UW Medicine.

> "If they were showing signs of failure, the materials were moved to other > freezers," Gregg said. "We were very diligent that none of those research > specimens were damaged." No specimens were found to have any contamination, > she added. The animals, mostly rodents, held in the building's vivarium, > have all been moved to another location as well. It took about two weeks for > the HVAC system to be turned back on.

I love how they use a FUD quote from an "anonymous" source while following it up with an actual source which claims the complete opposite...

People love to be dramatic.

Also an interesting fact from Wikipedia:

>> Accidental ingestion of caesium-137 can be treated with Prussian blue, which binds to it chemically and reduces the biological half-life to 30 days.

[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Caesium-137#/Health_risk_of_radi...](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Caesium-137#/Health_risk_of_radioactive_caesium)

<comment><USER2> Regarding the accidental ingestion of Cs-137. The radioactive source in this case, according to the article, was in the form of talkum powder. The danger with this kind of material is not that it will be accidentally ingested, but that it will find its way into the respiratory system, where it can't be easily bound by Prussian blue.

Accidents with irradiation sources of Caesium 137 have previously happened. See my other comment in this thread on the radiological accident in Goiania, Brazil, in the 1980's, where the source of the radiation was a radiotherapy unit with a Cs-137 source, that was sold for scrap and taken to peoples' homes for the strange blue glow it emited.

With radiation risks, the idea is to find a balance: don't go mad with fear, but don't treat it like it's trivial, either. I mean, it's not like because you can neutralise Cs-137 with Prussian blue, you can go ahead and solve some in your afternoon tea and imbibe it, and no worries.

<comment><USER36> That's interesting but I wasn't making any sort of statement that Prussian Blue is some sort of solution to these problems. I just found it to be an interesting fact.

<comment><USER2> Yes, your comment makes this clear. My bad then. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Great article, surprised this is the first time I'm hearing about this.

</comment><comment><USER38> If this is how involved _removing_ the thing is, how exactly was it built? And if you can't transport it inside the irradiator, how did the irradiator get there?

<comment><USER39> > how did the irradiator get there

On a flatbed or inside a semi, down the freeway, then installed with a combination of cranes and forklifts.

The irradiator goes out on the truck, but in modern times they don't want the cesium in it because of less perceived risk of truck accidents and terrorist hijackings. The small radioactive capsule can be sent more discretely via a smaller vehicle, and a security escort.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> What surprises me the most is that they did the cutting in an open room (door open) without taping over the HVAC vents. They literally could have made a makeshift tent out of plastic tarps to do the cutting inside. Such bad safety precautions...

<comment><USER41> The article says they put up a steel chamber for that purpose, but it's totally unclear what exactly happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> As a former Rad worker who has even cleaned up a radioactive spill I'm just shacking my head at the all the "experts" in the comments.

<comment><USER43> It took me a while to realize this. It wasn't until there was a post about something I was an expert on. I finally realized people respond here often with little knowledge or even no knowledge at all. It made me question everything I read before on this site.

<comment><USER44> It's not just commenters on this site; planet wide problem.

<comment><USER45> This site (or at least the community around it) does claim a degree of highbrow intellectual merit and deep technical expertise that places it in a self-determined echelon above the rest of the web, which one can readily see in the disdain that commenters here have for Reddit, other social media sites, most non-technical fields and people in general.

So it is ironic and kind of funny when you realize that, apart from a few outliers, Hacker News is just as infested with trolls, fools, posers and Dunning-Krueger as the rest of the web.

It is just a more polite /g/ without the pictures and memes. That's not an insult, just an observation of how deeply the sets of users here, there, on Reddit and elsewhere overlap.

<comment><USER46> This seems demonstrably false.

If only, at the least, because the guidelines for HN discourage pointless and inane commentary. Reddit is very likely 95% funny one liners on the most active threads.

There are observably obvious differences, even if you don't agree with any inferences made from them.

<comment><USER45> I suspect you're confusing the quality of commentary with the quality of a commenter's expertise. Someone's comment can read as if they know what they're talking about, being well written and civil, without that commenter actually knowing what they're talking about.

Also, Reddit is not 95% funny one liners in technical or programming forums, and the guidelines for those often also discourage pointless and inane commentary. Go look at /r/askhistorians for one example. Reddit does have a higher tolerance for humor and memes than HN, but humorlessness is not necessarily an indicator of quality.

<comment><USER46> To your second point, I agree, but I was comparing specifically the common top posts ("front page") to one another. HN is obviously more niche, but the ways in which its niche is defined are what I contend do, in fact, result in a better quality of discussion.

To your first point, I also concede that this phenomenon certainly does happen, but would counter with the notion that this probably happens with every conversation ever, with it perhaps tapering off in materials science discussions amongst experts.

I'd assert that it's happening right now, given that neither of us are likely informed enough to empirically support our assertions here. We're merely sharing our rather vague impressions.

<comment><USER45> >I'd assert that it's happening right now, given that neither of us are likely informed enough to empirically support our assertions here. We're merely sharing our rather vague impressions.

That's fair. A lot of what happens here can probably be described as anecdotes sparring with other anecdotes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Jesus that read like a big ol fuck up. The lack of preparation for a spill, despite having all these people on site, is the most glaring issue. SFD didn't even get a heads up.</comment>