Our microbiome challenges our concept of self - <AUTHOR> http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2018/02/our-microbiome-challenges-our-concept.html <comment><USER2> Whether or not your concept of self is challenged depends on your current concept. If you think biology is applied chemistry, and chemistry is applied physics, you're just fine.

<comment><USER3> As long as you understand that "you" don't exist, you are just fine.

<comment><USER4> What are the practical consequences? Should I revoke your status as a being I have general moral obligations to? Or should I extend my moral obligations to all objects animated or not?

<comment><USER3> You have a moral obligation to the Universe inclusive of everything it comprises, not any isolated parts of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting philosophical questions on how oneself views oneself, especially if you go back to the source paper at [http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour...](http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005358) rather than the linked extract. "[W]e have never been individuals..."

Microbiome is one of the things we're including in the Arivale program. Early days on the research front, but fascinating stuff - our clinical team have written up two less philosophical, more scientific articles re. correlations of microbiome to health at [https://www.arivale.com/gut-microbiome-tmao-heart- heath/](https://www.arivale.com/gut-microbiome-tmao-heart-heath/) and [https://www.arivale.com/gut-microbiome-crohns/](https://www.arivale.com/gut- microbiome-crohns/).

</comment><comment><USER6> I posted this comment ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923695](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923695)) about the microbiome about 2 months that is related, of course I was down voted into oblivion.

But essentially my point was that human genes are not determinative and work hand in hand with the microbiome, where an analogy I used (though not my original thought) is that the human (genes) are like a piano and the microbiome is like the player.

One of the more interesting studies I have read included identical twins in Africa, where obviously genes are identical, so is environment and diet, yet one twin would be healthy while the other was malnourished. The conclusion was it was the difference in the twins microbiome that was determinative and the cause.

<comment><USER7> Will you are a lawyer (quite a good lawyer by my estimate), but you should be careful when moving outside of your sphere of competency. Biology is very, very complex.

Identical twins are not genetically identical (they typically all have small genetic difference), but even if they were the cause for any difference could be due to factors outside of the microbiome. There is no way any careful scientist could conclude from one set of twins what the cause of any difference between them was.

Edit. I apologise for my tone. I am just trying to explain why you got downvoted.

<comment><USER6> >There is no way any careful scientist could conclude from one set of twins what the cause of any difference between them was.

The twin study wasn't n=1 it was multiple sets of twins throughout the continent. Either way the twin study wasn't in my original comment, so it wasn't the reason for my being downvoted.

My comment regarded the fact that humans have relatively very few genes compared to many other life forms, yet are obviously more complex, that should'nt be controversial or downvoted. But I continued that the microsbiome _can_ explain some of that complexity, for example here is article from Cleveland Clinic regarding a study that concludes the microbiome can change the way genes express themselves, not changes to dna, but the microbiome can turn genes on and off. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/health.clevelandclinic.org/2016...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/health.clevelandclinic.org/2016/10/billions- bacteria-bodies-change-genes/amp/)

<comment><USER7> Humans don't have relatively fewer genes compared to other life forms. Humans have less DNA than some species (salamandas are an example), but all animals have around the same number of genes. The extra DNA in some organisms seems to be (mostly) non-functional.

Yes the microbiome influences which genes are expressed.

<comment><USER6> In the example I was given was wheat vs humans. A quick google search shows wheat has 164,000 to 334,000 genes, compared to 20,000 to 25,000 for humans.

The way it was expressed to me at the time it's scientifically surprising much simpiler life forms have fewer genes. "This paradox has vexed scientists since the discovery of DNA about 45 years ago," notes Dmitri Petrov of Harvard University's Society of Fellows, when discussing amoeba's with a genome 200 times the size of a human. See: [https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2000/02/why-onions- ha...](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2000/02/why-onions-have-more- dna-than-you-do/)

As you suggest I should probably avoid topics outside my expertise, and genetics certainly is, but I am passionate about health and nutrition, on the edge of those topics the microbiome and genetics come up. Anyway I think was I contribute on these topics deserves a conversation (reply) like you have engaged in and not just downvotes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >On the contrary, it means that the stakes of the natural sciences exceed the expertise of the natural sciences and reach over into the arts. This makes a close collaboration of the life sciences with the human sciences imperative.

Why do new findings like this lead people to conclude that "science needs philosophy" It's never the philosophers that make the findings.

And it's not like the laws of physics will need to be re-written.

<comment><USER9> "Philosophy is dead" \- Stephen Hawking.

Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science, they do not have the expertise necessary to do anything but pontificate on vagaries. Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in useful and productive ways. Scientists do that now.

<comment><USER10> > Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science

Incorrect.

> they do not have the expertise necessary to do anything but pontificate on > vagaries

Also incorrect.

> Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide > religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and > answering questions in useful and productive ways.

3 for 3, congratulations!

<comment><USER9> Excellent points. I stand refuted and corrected. Wonderful.

<comment><USER10> There's nothing to refute, your statements had just as little substance as mine. If only there was some field of study which could discern valid logical arguments and how persuasive we ought to find them. Someone really ought to start such a field of study.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I came across some of the microbiome research in the recent years, I know about the hacker culture interest in fermented foods and do drink kefir semi- regularly myself. But there appears to be a quite some correlation between microbiome and, well, diet: [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12820](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12820) Aparrantly you can change your microbiome rapidly by eating differently.

When discovering effects for the whole organism, can't it be that these are correlations that have been found before in nutrition studies? Why is / isn't this a problem? Maybe I'm missing something.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if these new discoveries about the microbiome can explain why on disciplines like Zen meditation (Zazen), one has to focus her mind on a point at the gut level.

Could these techniques somehow be aware of the gut-mind connection?

[https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and- conditions/the-g...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and- conditions/the-gut-brain-connection)

<comment><USER13> Just an info: Focusing mind at the gut level is not specific to Zen meditation but is instead part of Yoga Sutras of Patanjali ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali)) from which all these techniques are derived from. Specifically it is focusing on the 7 centres of energy called Chakras. The gut level thing you talk about is called the Manipura in Sanskrit or the Solar Plexus Chakra in English transliteration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> That's where the concept of soul fits right in. We cannot delineate between "us" and the "environment" either - we constantly lose and acquire molecules from it.

<comment><USER15> Any examples of molecules acquisition and losing?

<comment><USER16> Every inhale and exhale, for two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There is a lot of truth in that - the microbiome is a key factor affecting out nutritional intake. It affects how effective we take up energy but also affects us through a multitude of chemicals all influencing the cells in our body. Our health, out intellectual capabilities and our moods depend on it.

If the ego is part microbiome and we are consequent then we should have laws that declare antibiotics tools for partitial mass murder or suicide.

</comment><comment><USER18> Warren Ellis, as usual, is ahead of the curve.

One of the most interesting characters in _Normal_ is a (seriously mentally ill) futurist who conceives of her microbiome as a separate entity and talks to it like she suffers from DID. It's a whole book about how a sufficiently- obsessive focus on the future can break your identity, so this is a nice fit.

<comment><USER19> Is this worth reading if I loved Transmetropolitan?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The results from this study will probably be interesting: [https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experime...](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1010.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> GMO BT bacteria gets in your gut, kills your flora, releases toxins (pesticides). Your body struggles, serotonin levels decreases. You can't sleep, get depressed. Your doctor prescribes SSRIs. It interferes with your reproductive system and quality of life.

<comment><USER22> You should consider expanding your source of news beyond naturalnews.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23>
      A car is not a car without the human, with the keys to the car, sitting in the driver's seat, in a state ready and capable to operate the vehicle, and in possession of valid paperwork in good-standing, proving that they are legally entitled to operate the vehicle.
      A car is not a car without the human, with the keys to the car, sitting in the driver's seat, in a state ready and capable to operate the vehicle.
      A car is not a car without the human, with the keys to the car, sitting in the driver's seat.
      A car is not a car without a human sitting in the driver's seat.
      A car is not a car without a human to drive it.
      A car is not a car without a human inside it.
      A car is not a car without an animal inside it.
      A car is not a car without an object inside it.
      A car is not a car without an engine inside it.
      A car is not a car without something inside it.
      A car is not a car without anything inside it.

Doesn't hold up. The car remains a car, so long as it is actually a car.

If you really want to challenge views about being a human, consider that each of us all have been single celled animals for at least a couple of seconds, if not minutes or hours, of our lives. It didn't stay that way, but it's an incontrovertible fact for every last one of us, and indeed also for lots of other organisms.

Plenty of passengers ride the bus, but the bus is not redefined by this.

<comment><USER24> _each of us all have been single celled animals for at least a couple of seconds_

That seems wrong to me because it conflates different identity concepts. That cell wasn't _me_ , but more like a seed from where I was built. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, identical twins come from a single embrio that gets splitted, so with that reasoning both twins were the same person at one time. I don't think so.

<comment><USER23> That's exactly what I mean about proposing a notion that serves as a challenge to a point of view. I was pretty confident I was putting forward a statement that someone would take issue with, even if it's part of a sentiment I buy into.

Anyway, the original atoms and molecules of that first cell are long gone, yet here we are. In terms of qualifying one's semblance of self, I think infant amnesia also represents a significant developmental boundary, for "counting" as a self aware human. If you don't remember learning to walk, was it "you" that learned? It's a pretty fluid and blurry line for human existence.

<comment><USER5> Speaking of challenges to a point of view:

 _Plenty of passengers ride the bus, but the bus is not redefined by this._

Smell, sickness, graffiti, background noise, and even the occasional pleasant conversation.. all things passengers bring to the bus that may not actually redefine it but do potentially have lasting impact on the bus itself and shape the experience for all parties involved.

<comment><USER25> The whole problem is anthropomorphism. There is no bus, there am just I, and the bus is part of _my_ experience. There are no other people, even -- only me and that which looks and behaves similar to me. So I rationalize exterior events as just as involuntary as my own thought. When I rationalize that as free will, I must rationalize other exterior stimuli as expected, wanted and willed, too, but then there is no interior left. Which is a contradiction, so nihilism is the only solution. If that sounds like bollocks, I will still find a way to rationalize that.

> Plenty of passengers ride the bus, but the bus is not redefined by this.

The busriding-experience is shaped, which is all that matters. How many parts of a ship can you change until it's not the same ship anymore? There never was a ship to begin with. Just a build. Perhaps this is why Americans love the gerund. "building" is a process and an object at the same time.

> ... lasting impact on the bus itself and shape the experience for all > parties involved

This prompted me to answer. I couldn't say it better.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Users complaining of downtime, but no alerts and nothing in logs? - <AUTHOR> Anyone have experience with this? Had a user say the site has not been available frequently recently. Its a static site, and I have uptime monitors setup that have never been triggered. Additionally, it seems most of these reports come from foreign countries (this report being specific to Germany). <comment><USER2> You could check if your server IP is on a blacklist [https://mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx/](https://mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx/) Those are usually for/against email spam. Often entries remains after the owner or the whole website changed.

If you use https you could try to find out if the user's browser doesn't support your (offered) chiphers [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/](https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/) Internet Explorer 6 comes to mind. We run an API and sometimes, though very rare, users try to access it using http/1.0 or other super old compiled binaries. Or see 'SSL handshake' errors in our load balancer logs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Did you tried to speak with IT department ? I belive they should be able to debug or escalate with hosting provider.</comment>


Watch TSA Nude Body Scaners Get Defeated | TSA Out of Our Pants - <AUTHOR> http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/watch-tsa-nude-body-scaners-get-defeated/

<comment><USER2> There's nothing in this video that demonstrates the body scanner failing to pick up on something it should have. Is there an original video associated with this one that demonstrates that?

<comment><USER3> Here is the original article with video, excluding the airport security camera footage, but with actual description (starting at 0:58):

[http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of- nude-...](http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body- scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas- nude-body-scanners/)

And then here is the post about the TSA wanting blogs and media to takedown coverage of that post:

[http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/breaking- ts...](http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/breaking-tsa- threatens-mainstream-media-not-to-cover-story/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can attest that some TSA officers secretly do not give 'enhanced patdowns.' 2 weeks ago I flew out of LaGuardia. Both me and my fiance requested an 'opt out.' My experience with the patdown was nothing at all dissimilar from getting patted down by security at the entrance of a music festival. My fiance however was vigorously patted down by a female TSA officer. This makes me wonder whether male TSA officers are less likely to 'touch your junk' when seen in contrast to the female patdown experience.

<comment><USER5> Both times I've opted out (out of the two I was about to enter a scanner), nobody touched my junk. The TSA officer explained how he would pat me down next, and I think he did the buttocks with the back of the hand, but neither came near the groin.

I don't think TSA officers like touching our junk any more than we do, really... Anyway, luckily I don't have to fly to the US often. I find even taking off my shoes degrading.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, many TSA officers hate the body scanners and enhanced pat-downs. Before they were implemented, people didn't really "like" the TSA but the complaints were along the lines of "Why do I have to take off my shoes?" or "Your liquids rule is so stupid!" Now the complaints are, "How does it feel to be a child molester for a living," which is entirely a different ballgame for them.</comment></comment></comment>


Most Dangerous Gamer - <AUTHOR> http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most-dangerous-gamer/8928/2/

<comment><USER2> Interesting article, that I look forward to finishing. Just wanted to point out that the link goes to page 2 (of 3) - I was confused at the jump in until I got to the end of the page and realized it was because I started in the middle.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do you hire H1-B workers instead of natives? - <AUTHOR> Why do you companies not exercise your duty to your own country and hire foreign nationals for American jobs? <comment><USER3> There is no such duty to hire non-foreign-nationals. I do however have duty to my company to make the best hiring decisions, so I'm not going to pass on a perfectly qualified candidate with an H1B and cross my fingers that I'll find a similarly qualified candidate who also happens to be a citizen soon. The opportunity cost can be quite dramatic. We pay H1Bs the same as anyone else, so technically they end up costing more - sometimes this offsets said opportunity cost, often it does not.

I also don't hire for "American" jobs. They are just jobs and if you can do it, I don't care about your race, ethnicity, origin, preference of Star Trek to Star Wars, etc. On a macro level, I believe there's more value to the US with the foreign nationals bringing their labor and keeping its products here rather than competing with US companies from overseas. Let's not forget that these foreign nationals pay taxes and spend money in the US as well.

<comment><USER4> Hear hear! I want to work with really good people that I like, communicated well with, and are excited about what they're doing (among other attributes as well). It's fairly rare that I come across someone with all of those qualities, but when I do, I don't care about nationality, etc.

H1Bs (and O-visas, etc.) tend to be more expensive than otherwise just hiring someone local. I'm not looking for someone cheap, as other commenters have infuriatingly speculated. In fact, I actually think that's a very dangerous path to go down, as you'll either find

1\. Someone who isn't very good (or else they wouldn't work for sub-market rates) 2\. Someone who is very good, but doesn't know their value - in which case, you'll lose out on your investment once they find you've been screwing them over.

I also don't understand why - if I like someone enough - I can't just hire them to come work in the US, regardless of national origin, assuming I pay enough. I suppose there's a danger of pay-for-play there, but I can't believe the trouble I've had working with amazingly talented people because they didn't have a recognized masters degree.

Finally, `exercise your duty to your own country` is an inherently suspect phrase that makes me suspicious about the thought process behind that lead up to it.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you are an American based company you should only be hiring American Citizens.

<comment><USER3> Stop trolling. You have ignored the arguments provided in this thread and have produced zero arguments of your own. This could have been an interesting discussion, but instead the thread has been rightfully flagged.

<comment><AUTHOR> All because I don't circle jerk the H1B program and support leftist logic does not mean I'm trolling.

<comment><USER5> So I'm curious here cause I'm not quite certain. What is lefist logic in this instance? Also, are there any objective metrics that align with the idea that American companies should only hire American citizens? For example, are such companies more profitable, efficient, or politically powerful?

<comment><USER6> Also it's important to point out many american companies have significant portions of their revenues ex-US. e.g. GE/GM/Cisco etc have 60-70% of revenues from outside the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cheaper, duh. As a corporation, you want all of your corporate inputs to have multiple suppliers and heavy competition to supply you. That gives you low prices for your inputs. You want your outgoing product to be a monopoly, or nearly so - that gives you high prices for your outputs.

It has long been understood in the U.S. that pulling workers from remote areas strongly depresses local wages. You don't want any tightness in labor supply. You also don't want your workers to organize, since again, this causes tightness in labor supply. The transcontinental railroads brought in Chinese workers, not because they were superlative workers or in any way superior at driving track spikes than the Irish were, but only to drive down the wages demanded by the Irish. Today farms prefer Mexican workers, not because locals can't pick apples, but only because it drives down the wages demanded. This cycle repeats throughout history.

And this is why wages for programmers, etc., haven't gone up at all in the last 15 years (and probably never will again). The supply of programmer labor is being managed to always exceed the local demand, keeping wages flat.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why do fruit farmers hire foreign labour rather than American labour? I suspect the reasons are similar even if the paperwork at the border is different.

</comment><comment><USER9> You're obviously trolling but here is something you could learn:

H1-B = 62'000 Visa allocated per years

Last Oct about 160'000 new jobs where created in the US (270'000 during the month of June for example).

Under Obama (8 years) 9 million jobs were created total, which is above 1 million jobs per year. So, 8 x 62'000 = 496'000 H1-B under Obama. Versus 9 million new jobs in the US...

<comment><USER10> I'm fairly certain people qualifying for H1-B's that are 'requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor' are competing for the glut of those 9 million jobs. Come on.

While OP's post isn't a very good one, you can't throw numbers like that at it. How many of those 9 million jobs are fulfilling, full time, well paying , etc. Isn't underemployment a big problem in the US?

<comment><USER9> You don't like numbers and facts, then let's take it to the next level.

Majority of the Dev community in the San Francisco Bay Area (for example) is of Asian/Indian descent. We're not even talking about foreigners here. Children of immigrants (immigrants who probably came through H1-B) - <USER2> second generation, American citizens.

So, bringing people via H1-B actually helps fulfilling "high-level" jobs with American citizens. Does it make sense?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For the same reasons as why (for example) more women and minorities should be hired: a diversified team is more successful in the long run.

[https://www.thebalance.com/cultural- diversity-3306201](https://www.thebalance.com/cultural-diversity-3306201) [https://www.asme.org/engineering- topics/articles/diversity/m...](https://www.asme.org/engineering- topics/articles/diversity/more-diverse-personalities-mean-more-successful)

<comment><AUTHOR> Those countries have a duty to their own people. American jobs for American citizens.

<comment><USER6> Define an "american job"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is not true in all cases, but H1B workers show up to work hard, show strong understanding that they are being paid to do a job as opposed to being entitled for some lifestyle, and have more respect for the hierarchy of the org. They will tend to stick around for a while too, and not be job hoppers. It is saddening to see them exploited as basically indentured servants.

On the flip side, they do not challenge authority when they know a better way to do something, their educational foundation is not as solid because of too much focus on rote memorization, and tend to let interpersonal problems fester instead of escalating because they cannot imagine speaking out of their place in the hierarchy.

The top tier of Home country employees are great, but once you get to the lower part of tier 2 and tier 3, they tend to have an attitude of "what can the company do for me?" , Instead of "What can I do for the company?" And they start feeling like dead weight.

Of course these are all generalizations and there are exceptions everywhere to what I have said.

</comment><comment><USER13> In the gaming industry, there is recently a large pool of low-skill workers graduating from game specialty schools. But, that wasn't the case ten years ago. We had to hire whoever we could find with skills and (not just with) interest in working in gaming.

There has never been a large enough talent pool of highly skilled people working in gaming. We still need to find them all over the world. Europe and Russia have a lot of very smart, underpayed devs. Every visa worker I've worked with has been very skilled, loved living and working in the US, and most were trying to become highly skilled, highly paid, highly-tax-paying citizens of the US.

Before the inevitable "you'd find more people if you paid more", I've seen the numbers of many, many games. 90% of the non-marketing budget goes to non- management devs already. Games are notorious for being difficult to be profitable already. Customer awareness is the biggest challenge of profitability. So... if you have any suggestions on where to get more money to pay devs, I'd love to hear them.

</comment><comment><USER14> Its cheap indentured labor as simple as that. H1B is supposed to be speciality based positions for skills which are not available locally. Tell me why all the junior developers are H1b. Don't you feel if americans are given the same opportunity for these positions they will not do well. Things are getting so bad out there these days that most jobs are never advertised but they pickup H1B by default so no US citizen ever gets a chance to apply or even compete for these jobs.

</comment><comment><USER15> You should be asking Tata and other IT service providers this question (and maybe Disney)

Now ask Microsoft, RedHat, Google, Intel (and others) why are they hiring H1Bs and you might have a surprise

<comment><USER16> I worked for one of the big names mentioned above(not IT services) and I am a H1B myself with a masters from a US university. And most of the H1Bs I know are on par or more qualified than their peers, most of them educated here at top tier universities and paid equally or more than American counterparts. So, why then should you not hire H1B workers when they add equal or more value?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> [http://www.firstpost.com/world/immigrants-we-get-the-job- don...](http://www.firstpost.com/world/immigrants-we-get-the-job-done- hamilton-cast-delivers-sharp-message-to-mike-pence-3114042.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> if you answer why there are american companies milking till the last drop of our natural resources I can answer why we get your jobs.</comment>


Connected Health: Telemedicine Platform Technology Patent Landscape - <AUTHOR> https://www.moellerventures.com/index.php/blog/25-2020-articles/48-2020-04-20-telemedicine-platform-tech-patent-landscape <comment><AUTHOR> This is part 2 (of 3) of my series on telemedicine IP landscapes and thought I'd try a post on HN. This market has changed quite dramatically in just the last month with the coronavirus pandemic and the waiving of regulations governing telemedicine. This report profiles the patent landscape created from an assignee query using the names of 33 notable telemedicine platform tech companies. Of the 33 companies, 11 surfaced with patent docs in the domain collection, with Teladoc Health (NYSE:TDOC) being the clear IP leader largely via its acquisition of InTouch Technologies. 29 of the companies are private and have raised approximately $1.8 billion in venture funding. Jim</comment>


We build what we love (or "how to save us from an x86-only world") - <AUTHOR> http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/we-build-what-we-love

<comment><USER2> _How many applications that run only (or, at least, better) on non-x86 boxes were developed in the last couple years?_

The answer to this question is that a vast number of applications that only run on the iPhone's ARM have been developed in the last few years. Also a large number of web applications that run fine on on both ARM and x86 have been developed.

The dying architecture is actually x86 because Windows is becoming irrelevant for consumers. Not overnight, but it's happening. OS X runs on x86, but I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple some day moves their laptops to ARM, considering they have to do something interesting with their new, homegrown chips.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed: ARM is in no danger of going the way of the dodo. It's the dominant platform on mobile devices.

Unfortunately, the ARM's dominance can have a negative effect in the diversity of the segment, thus slowing down evolution on mobile platforms. Still, until app availability weights the market down, mobile is more resistant to fragmentation and friendlier to hardware diversity.

I would be delighted to see an ARM-based full-featured notebook, running an open and portable userland, but I fear Apple is not a company that will favour diversity. Given time, we may end up with the same problems we face today.

We need more than one alternative to x86. We need a fragmented market.

<comment><USER3> I cannot see what benefit a fragmented processor instruction set market would bring to anyone. It was more fragmented in the past and as far as I can tell not much was different then except that even fewer programs could run cross platform or virtualized.

<comment><USER4> It could be good under the assumption that other technology - compilers, virtual machines, virtualisation, web apps - has moved on to the extent that a wider variety of instruction sets could bring benefits rather than problems.

<comment><AUTHOR> One could add that many of the compiler advancements happened to counterbalance binary architecture limitations.

Contrast aggressive register optimization for function calling on most RISC boxes with SPARC's moving register window or the hoops you have to jump through on register-starved instruction sets like x86s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't get the point of this article. After all, the OS is an abstraction layer other the hardware and anyway, most cool developments happen in software, not hardware nowadays.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but hardware still matters. Look at virtualization - yes, VMWare and co mostly make it work, but it's slow, buggy and full of vulnerabilities. In short, it's a kludge.

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't describe VMWare ESX as slow or buggy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Every x86 processors, however, is decidedly a kludge...

<comment><USER7> Yes, but you can hardly blame VMWare for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> No. Some kludginess is, in fact, excusable on grounds of being a counterkludge to unkludge the physical processor. ;-)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The truly personal computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21645131-smartphone-defining-technology-age-truly-personal-computer

<comment><USER2> One of the better overviews of mobile and IoT. A few quotes:

 _".. evolution has equipped [the Ood] with two brains—one in their heads, the other carried around in their hand.

.. a computer that is always with you .. undermines old certainties about what was what and who was who ..

.. spatial cues—getting into a lift or onto a train, for example—can reliably trigger a check of the screen ..

.. the world's smallest slot machines ..

.. lives playing out in a "timeless time" in which activities and exchanges happen in parallel or even backwards (when people's lives come with timelines, it is a common experience to find out what they said first only after you know what they said next)."_

Edit: If this article was a Fringe episode, apps on the mobile would be portals into possible universes, each trying to convince users to choose one pocket universe for physical materialization.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is the editor getting cheeky with the ELO, Rick Astley, and Steely Dan references? It's pointless joking, I guess, but it makes me think...how many other dumb sub-headlines did I not understand? Why do otherwise serious magazines do that kind of thing?

<comment><USER4> It is the house style. They do funny captions on photos too or amusing photos to illustrate serious stories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> well written and accurate, but nothing new, or to me very interesting</comment>


MongoEngine 0.3 Released - <AUTHOR> http://hmarr.com/2010/mar/17/mongoengine-03-released/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for this great piece of software. I've discovered mongoengine a few days ago, and found myself trying to add iexact and other methods. Now 0.3 leaves more time to focus on to the projects :)</comment>


I will build your application in a month for $2000 - <AUTHOR> I'm a React developer (over 15 years of programming experience altogether) starting my own JS boutique. I do not have any long-term assignments yet, so would love to build something for fun and portfolio.
A month is enough to build a MVP or develop existing application.
What you will get: - A React application (web or mobile) with working Node.js backend - 40-80 hours of my time in January - whole ownership of the code - help with server configuration and deployment
Please send me your ideas/questions to firstname.lastname@example.com. We could start next week. <comment><USER2> Congrats on the domain name! I like the name and it's rare to be able to get something catchy these days.</comment>


How has Prop. 13 affected tax distribution in Santa Clara County? - <AUTHOR> https://sanjosespotlight.com/how-has-prop-13-affected-tax-distribution-in-santa-clara-county/#.XgTjnqQrays.twitter <comment><USER2> The benefactors who currently own these homes are passing them down to relatives without passing down the new higher property tax. What's more is that homes that people who were 'lucky' to buy in the past, such as Palo Alto properties, benefited from white-only clauses: "No person not wholly of the white Caucasian race shall use or occupy such property unless such person or persons are employed as servants of the occupants." \- [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/03/29/housings- trou...](https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/03/29/housings-troubled- history-of-discrimination)

It's historically unfair, and nothing to my knowledge has been done to undo the damage from discriminatory housing policies.

If you want to read more, here's a recent 2019 study review on the economic damage from unfair housing policies in Chicago: [https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/05/30/728122642/contract-...](https://www.npr.org/local/309/2019/05/30/728122642/contract- buying-robbed-black-families-in-chicago-of-billions)

<comment><USER3> I believe the tax can only be passed on to children. Not "relatives" in general.

It's still worthy of debate if this should be the case, but it's not as broad as giving it to your nieces or nephews.

<comment><USER4> > It's still worthy of debate if this should be the case, but it's not as > broad as giving it to your nieces or nephews.

Prop 58 allowed exchanges between parents and children (in either direction), Prop 193 expanded it to include those between grandparents and grandchildren (in either direction). So you can't do it directly to nephews/nieces (or aunts/uncles), but if you have the right set of living, willing relatives to combine a prop 193 transfer and a prop 58 transfer you can do it.

<comment><USER5> But neither of those policies is the result of Prop 13, which is what the parent implied.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Every time Prop 13 comes up, I like to tell the story of my own neighborhood.

On my block are four almost identical houses. They are all about 1800sq ft.

My neighbor, who is the original owner from 1962, pays $X in tax. My neighbor on the other side, who bought in the 90s, pays $10X. I pay $20X (bought in 2008), and the one who just moved into the last house pays $40X.

We all get the same services from the city, but one person pays 40X the other. The new owners are basically subsidizing the neighbors, despite being the ones who have to spend more of their income to pay their mortgage.

It's completely ridiculous.

<comment><USER7> I think it would need more ridiculous for your poor neighbor to be forced to move out just because a bunch of rich people paid a whole lot for neighboring houses and inflated the property values. Prop 13 at least gives you some comfort that the same thing will not happen to you—there is less uncertainty in your future with regard to your expenses (assuming your property tax is the 2nd largest bill after your mortgage).

<comment><USER6> This is a red herring by the anti-tax zealots. Somehow in the 49 states without prop 13 this doesn't happen.

Worst case, the retiree can downsize their home and cash out their equity, freeing what is most likely an oversized property for a younger family, or they can take out a home equity line to pay the taxes.

And luckily because of the rising property values it would be really easy to get that equity line since the LTV would be really low!

<comment><USER5>
      cash out their equity

... which means they pay income taxes on the _unindexed_ gain ( _not_ adjusted for inflation).

When you combine that tax hit with the cost of a replacement property, and _it_ being taxed at the full current rate, it's not worth it.

Those voters who voted No on Prop 5[0], which would have made tax basis portable statewide, have nobody else to blame for the low property turnover among long held real property.

[0] [https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Property_T...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Property_Tax_Transfer_Initiative_\(2018\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The simply fact (as articulated by CityLab article whose name I forget) is "housing cannot be both affordable and a good investment".

Encouraging the desperation of capital through mass home ownership is a cruel joke. Even ignoring the fact that relatively few "homeowners" have paid off their morgage ([https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-homeowners- hav...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-homeowners-have-paid- off-their-mortgages/)), the value extracted is basically by rent seeking against other maybe future member of the same "middle class".

People should own capital through a UBI (common ownership of a bit of everything) or actual productive enterprise (your immigrant small businesses), not price gouge each other.

</comment><comment><USER9> Prop 13 is rent control by another name. I would love to hear economists speak as damningly about Prop 13 as they regularly do about rent control.

<comment><USER10> Rent control is using the power of the state to coerce individuals.

Limiting tax increases reduces the power of the state to coerce individuals.

The two have nothing in common.

<comment><USER9> A reminder that Hacker News has an "assume the strongest interpretation of one's argument" idea. (In case it's not clear, expanding with my thoughts below).

What is the primary effect of rent control? Everyone renting before the enactment pays proportionally less in rent than those after enactment.

What is the primary effect of Prop 13? Owners who purchased before 1978 pay proportionally less in property taxes than those who purchased after 1978.

These are huge, (in my view) obvious parallels between the two. Both policies encourage the market to become sticky: renters won't leave, for fear of giving up their cheap rent as time goes own; for landowners, they are discouraged to sell, knowing an identical property would raise their annual property tax expenses. As property values go up, it further encourages landowners to hold, becoming a negative feedback loop on the housing supply.

<comment><USER6> > Owners who purchased before 1978 pay proportionally less in property taxes > than those who purchased after 1978.

It's even worse than that, since prop 13 isn't a one time thing. Just like rent control, you lock in _whenever you purchase_.

My neighbor pays double what I do for effectively the same house. It's totally unfair to them.

<comment><USER9> I'd imagine it's very unfair for people who bought in 2006 vs 2008 vs 2010. One time, I asked an older coworker about this, and he told me that getting a reassessment was popular for those who purchased in the bubble after it popped.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Repeal prop 13 so everyone pays a fair share, get rid of single unit detached homes in metros with high population density and build lots of high density housing condos and town houses, e.g. say a 3 bedroom that a family making at least 140k can afford on a 30 year. Get rid of stupid expensive HOAs. One can dream.

<comment><USER12> It's funny how the "NIMBYs" are apparently very unpopular around here but the tax incentives that create the NIMBYs are very popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was in the second grade when prop 13 passed, but I still remember a palpable change in the morale of teachers the day this passed. I think the split roll thing makes sense, but I made the mistake of getting involved in some facebook discussion about this -- some folks are so in love with prop 13, you would think it was the second amendment.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why should we care about single family property taxes set at the time of purchase?

People move, and sell, or pass away and their families then acquire the property and must decide what to do. There's a reasonable question to discuss about prop 13 passing from parents to children, but in general property turnover on single family homes in the US are 5-7 years. Focusing on this part of prop 13 is almost intended to cause people to fight each other rather than the real problem.

Corporations don't pass away. Even when they are acquired by other corporations, they try to block reassessment of property. I can't at the moment find what happened with the taxes after all of the bank acquisitions in 2008, but I do remember them fighting any increases based on the fact that the property did not change hands.

There are other corporate properties in CA that also have never increased their tax bill, such as Disneyland. So as we consider removing prop 13 protections from corporations in 2020, let's remember that corporations don't die, but people (sadly) on the other hand do. Any correction in the market of taxes on your home is setup almost exactly the way we want. People on a fixed income don't need to worry about paying more, while people benefiting from the current economy can.

<comment><USER6> I pay 20 times what my neighbor pays, and the other neighbor pays 40 times as much, for the same services. How is this remotely fair?

Even worse, I can find you homes in California that are valued over $4MM that are paying less than $1000/yr in property tax (buying that property new would be about $50,000/yr).

How is this fair?

<comment><USER14> Imagine a retiree living in their own home sees a sudden increase in property tax bill due to the rise of the market prices in the neighborhood. Without prop 13, many people in that scenario will be forced to move away from their own home.

The original idea of prop 13 is to protect home ownership. It sounds good but it is being applied to people that have "house" ownership not home ownership. Prop 13 should really be changed such that only if a homeowner living in the same house could pay the tax derived from the purchase price. If you rent out the property, you should pay the tax derived market price. If the property is a vacation house and not the primary home, the owner should pay the tax derived from the market price.

Commercial properties should always be paying the market price.

<comment><USER4> > The original idea of prop 13 is to protect home ownership.

No, the original idea of Prop 13 was a Norquistian "starve the beast" approach to government.

The big original _sales pitch_ for Prop 13 was to stop old people on fixed incomes from having to sell their homes because of taxes, but if that was the motivation rather than the sales pitch, it would never have applied to anything other than owner-occupied primary residences; instead, it applies to all real property regardless of use or ownership.q

<comment><USER5> There have been many times (including right now) that the Democrats had complete control (Governor and supermajorities in the Legislature) and could have passed a split-roll amendment, which would then need only 50%+1 of voters to pass.

They never have. Ask yourself: why not?

<comment><USER6> They did. It's on the ballot in 2020.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> According to the article, tax receipts would double if property taxes reflected their current value.

So we could repeal 13 and cut property taxes in half and still have the same tax receipts we do now.

As far as keeping "grandma" in her home, if she is sitting on $2 million in equity, why should she get to pay lower taxes than someone who first buys a $2 million house with minimal equity? Neighbors paying vastly different tax rates for similar properties is unjust. Their consumption of public services isn't different but grandma pays less than the young family just getting started. That's ridiculous. Not to mention grandma is probably living in a 5 bedroom house alone with her five cats — which is an underutilization of scarce housing resources. Taxation should be absolutely equal.

I, for example, have kids in private schools, but I still have to pay property taxes to support the local public schools and get no deduction for that tuition despite me not consuming those resources. I'm ok with that because public schools are important, but when grandma next door pays a fraction of what I pay, it's extremely unfair that I have to subsidize grandma. She isn't my grandma.

<comment><USER16> _Neighbors paying vastly different tax rates for similar properties is unjust. Their consumption of public services isn't different..._

Couldn't you make the same argument about any form of progressive taxation? (Perhaps you would?)</comment></comment>


A localStorage manager with expirable items and compression to save space - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ozantunca/locally <comment><USER2> Thank you for your contribution Ozan! Great work!

</comment><comment><USER3> super!</comment>


Facebook Bootcamp  - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150411360573109

<comment><AUTHOR> Is this a common practice across most companies or something unique to Facebook ?</comment>


Lies, Damned Lies, and Stock-Based Compensation - <AUTHOR> https://tanay.substack.com/p/lies-damned-lies-and-stock-based <comment><USER2> So people have a tendency to read a headline/submission title like this and without reading the article they launch onto their soapbox about their pet issue like, for example, equity compensation at startups should be treated as being worth $0 if the company is not listed.

The article isn't about that. It's about companies misrepresenting their expenses by not accounting for stock-based compensation ("SBC") costs, which is completely fair. Google and Facebook (quoted in the article) do. Others (eg Workday, Splunk, Okta and Atlassian are quoted) seem to muddy the waters by stating they're unprofitable on a GAAP basis (which includes SBC since 2004) but profitable on a non-GAAP basis (where SBC isn't treated as an expense, I assume?).

So, caveat emptor for investors, basically.

<comment><USER3> are you cletus from stackoverflow lmao you used to help me so god damn much back in 2008 during my college years when i was writing c#. small web!

<comment><USER4> Yep, that's him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's a thought experiment that helped me reason through SBC and GAAP.

Scenario A: Company hires an engineer with a base salary of 100k/year, and 100k/year worth of SBC.

Scenario B: Company convinces an investor to invest 100k/year... and also hires him as an engineer with a base salary of 200k/year.

From a business fundamentals and margins perspective, the two scenarios are identical. And yet, in scenario A, the company is spinning their non-GAAP annual expense as being 100k. Whereas in scenario B, the company wouldn't even try to spin their annual expense as being anything other than 200k.

The above thought experiment becomes particularly powerful if the hypothetical company has no other expenses and an annual revenue of $150k. Using the non- GAAP estimates from scenario A can mislead investors into thinking that the company has a very healthy gross margin, and is a lucrative investment. Whereas the actual GAAP numbers from both scenarios A and B, make it clear that the business is not profitable at all.

<comment><USER6> If you can convience employees to trade 100,000 cash for stock then is it really an expense or a risk shifted to the employee?

<comment><USER7> It read to me like they were intentionally ignoring details like the risk adjusted value of the SBC, not because they don't matter, but because they obscure the point being made that employee payment schemes can be used to sweep unprofitability under the rug.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We should be glad that public companies are forced to comply with FASB and issue GAAP financials that (since 2004) mandate that stock-based compensation be classified as a non-cash expense. By definition, non-GAAP figures are up to the company to specify and state, which indeed means that investors should be _actively_ updating their own models when making investment decisions if looking at non-GAAP.

</comment><comment><USER9> > " On February 28, 2017, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors > of the Company (the "Board") granted Mr. Hu a time-based stock option for > 900,000 shares of the Company's Class A common stock vesting over four > years, three performance-based stock options for an aggregate of 555,000 > shares of the Company's Class A common stock, each with a per share exercise > price equal to the closing price of the Company's Class A common stock on > the date of grant, and a time-based restricted stock unit grant for 100,000 > shares vesting over four years. Each equity grant is subject to the terms > and conditions of the Company's 2016 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the > "2016 Plan") and the applicable form of award agreement thereunder." [1]

I'm surprised Twilio isn't listed. Just there COO alone was issued ~1.5M shares. At today's market price ($208) his shares alone are worth $312M. Their annualized revenue is ~1.4B. So just their COO alone was issued SBC of 22% of the companies revenue.

And that doesn't factor in the SBC of all of the other employees either.

[1] [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1447669/000110465917...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1447669/000110465917014048/a17-7474_18k.htm)

<comment><USER8> Good catch about Twilio missing from the SBC as %revenue chart. Without digging into Twilio's 8-K's I feel compelled to note that options would be expensed as each tranche vests. So as a very rough estimate the COO being issued ~1.5M shares over 4 years wouldn't be 22% of annualized company revenue but perhaps something on the order of 6%, notwithstanding the vague language about the performance-based options conditions and vesting schedules.

>> _And that doesn't factor in the SBC of all of the other employees either._

You're right -- that probably pushes Twilio's SBC %revenue higher to the Salesforce line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's not cash, so where does the money come from? Isn't the answer "investors"? Wouldn't their decreased share value from the dilution be the source of "value" used to pay these options to employees?

<comment><USER11> Exactly this. I find the article unconvincing as far as its conclusion is concerned. At the end of the day, shareholders pay for the stock-based compensation with dilution. There's no expense to the "company".

As a thought experiment: say someone works for $0 in salary and 100 shares of Worthless Corp. After a year of work, our employee attempts to sell their shares, only to find no buyers. Unsurprisingly, their shares of Worthless Corp are worth $0. Did Worthless Corp incur an expense somewhere?

As far as I can tell, Worthless Corp received a years worth of work at no expense.

<comment><USER12> It's a bit weird to try and conceive of the corporation without thinking of its actual owners. They're the ones who the accounting is ultimately for.

If Worthless Corp had 100 shares outstanding before this employee, the expense was half the company - whatever the valuation ends up being.

This is not the same as "nothing", and accounting should at least attempt to reflect that - such as by placing an estimated market value on the shares.

<comment><USER13> That's only true if it happens to be true for a specific scenario. If giving some new employee 100 shares (doubling shares outstanding) actually increases the value of the company by at least 2x by some measure, then the investors holding the original 100 shares should be happy.

Regardless, this is a silly, contrived example. No public company is minting anywhere close to 100% of their total share count every quarter in SBC. It'll be a fraction of a percent, probably? And investors shouldn't care, as long as the company is performing well at metrics that actually matter: acquiring paying customers, where the cost of that acquisition is less than the new customers spend. That, and things like efficiency improvements that cut costs, are the only things that actually matter, because those things are what drive stock prices up.

<comment><USER12> Half a percent per quarter means you've given away a quarter of the company in 14 years. That's not something an accounting rule should allow you to just hand-wave away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The wild thing is, if ones accepts modern financial theory, from the eyes of a risk-neutral investor, stock-based compensation is actually much more costly because of imbedded option value and time value of money.

Say one needed to hedge the other side of a 4y employee stock grant. Let's assume the new cliff-less, monthly vest structure that is now market at some of FAANG. The counter-party would need to borrow a large amount of money to buy some fraction of the shares that the employee is likely to vest based on historical data. This also assumes they are just "delta hedging." There is definitely a "negatively convex" situation where if the stock price increases employees are less likely to leave and if it goes down, employees will find a new job that pays market.

Given the immense volatility in earlier stage companies, the counter-party may elect to hedge the gamma exposure as well, meaning they may need to buy calls in the open market against the RSU position.

In my opinion, Netflix has realized this, and given the implications decided to just pay cash. Dollar for dollar, to a well enough capitalized employee, the stock package is much better. This advantage increases with the volatility of the underlying asset. This completely ignores the career risk of working for a failed startup, but the culture in SV seems to minimize that.

<comment><USER13> Not sure I get this; who is this "counter party" you are referring to? My understanding was that the company doesn't actually buy shares on the open market when an employee vests RSUs or exercises options, but instead they either have a pool of shares waiting around (which they've never sold before), or they just mint new shares (and dilute existing investors).

For the pool structure, sure, there's an opportunity cost (the company could instead sell those shares on the public market). But in neither case does the company have to go out and spend money to buy up shares.

<comment><USER14> In modern financial theory valuation = cost of replicating the position. One can approach that cost from how the company or the employee would replicate it. My point here is that it is much more expensive than just paying the employee cash due to the optionality and the financing costs associated with such.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For mature companies it's pretty simple, stock-based compensation can be valued using the current share price and standard accounting principles.

For young companies, employees typically believe that their equity is worth _more_ than the fair market value. So if anything, the non-gaap income should use a higher number for stock-based compensation expenses.

<comment><USER13> > _For young companies, employees typically believe that their equity is worth > more than the fair market value. So if anything, the non-gaap income should > use a higher number for stock-based compensation expenses._

That's backwards, no? If employees are delusional and over-value the stock, they'll be willing to accept less of it and be just as happy, which reduces the amount of the "expense".

<comment><USER15> Right, and this reduced expense is the one that is in fact reflected in the GAAP numbers. But it might be useful for investors to know how much salaries would cost if they had to be payed in cash, which would be a higher number.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> what's the issue with this as long as the investors are also provided with the GAAP numbers? it's not like the compensation is hidden

<comment><USER13> I never got this criticism either. If investors are too inept to look at both numbers and do their due diligence to figure out why there are differences (and whether or not those differences are in some way legitimate), then that's on them.

And I also just don't agree that SBC is an "expense" that materially impacts a business to the degree the article implies it does. I think there are a lot of other numbers that change between GAAP and non-GAAP that are much more relevant and interesting to look at. It seems like missing the forest for the trees to pick on SBC like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a shitty article. He doesn't spend a single sentence defending why he thinks SBC should be included in non-GAAP reports. He just states it should be but never once says why. It's a terrible article and a waste of time.</comment>


Show HN: An interactive map of countries by tap water quality - <AUTHOR> https://www.iswatersafetodrink.in/map <comment><USER2> The primary/top database (Numbeo) you source is of dubious quality - i.e. Opinion based. Other sources vary wildly in reputation and don't offer information down to the city level you offer in search. The link to the CDC is to the homepage and offers no further depth on the subject you are reporting on.

Don't understand why you have a marketing type message that offers a calculation cost of savings from not drinking bottled water. It is not based on if the place searched has drinkable tap water or not. Also where do you get these prices?

As a tech demo it is fine - as a reputable source of information its on par with John Daly recommending Grey Goose to prevent Coronavirus.

This site is contributing to confusing or mis-information about tap water quality. For those who don't take the time to consider your sources, it is doing them a dis-service. You should label this at the top as a non-scientific tool of evaluating of tap water. It almost seems like you are working for a bottled water company.

<comment><AUTHOR> For the map itself, Numbeo is not the primary source, that would be the WHO data, which is weighted 3 times more than the data coming from Numbeo to put an emphasis on a more reliable data source.

The cost-saving from not drinking bottled water is not necessarily dependent if the water is drinkable or not, as water filters are widely available and can offer substantial savings -> [https://home.howstuffworks.com/save-money- with-water-filter1...](https://home.howstuffworks.com/save-money-with-water- filter1.htm) The prices are taken from Numbeo and are the average prices for 1.5L bottles. I am aware this is not a perfect calculation method, I am planning to add a cost-saving calculator soon which will offer more flexibility.

Regarding the reputable source of information, you are right. Country-level data can never be a good decision-tool to chose if you can drink tapwater somewhere or not. It has to happen on an area-basis and include scientific reports, which are hard to get as of 2020 as there is no single source/database/API for that, except for very few countries (including the US and Austria), I'm working on that and I'll try to improve the UI so it reflects that one should check the water quality in the area of interest rather than the country itself.

<comment><USER3> IDK, for me it looks more like a taste map than a quality map. In Spain northern regions have almost perfect water where mediterranean regions do have taste and more problems due the nature of their sources of water. I mean, it's not very useful. You'd drink tap water in my city or Madrid, you wouldn't like it in Barcelona, although you can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I made this while I was lockdown-bored.

The data sources are linked on the website. I plan to add scientific reports on water-levels soon on a city-level.

I want to raise awareness on how saving money and the environment often comes hand in hand when it comes to drinking water. For most people around the globe drinking straight tap water or using a water filter is a better solution than giving money to bottling companies like Nestlé!

I'd like to monetize this by either adding affiliate links to water filtration systems. Hope this helps! I think plastic pollution is one of our greatest challenges right now and I'd like to contribute to fixing that.

<comment><USER4> I've checked my city here is the link, [https://www.iswatersafetodrink.in/Russia/Nizhny- Novgorod](https://www.iswatersafetodrink.in/Russia/Nizhny-Novgorod) I don't know where 350$ is coming from. Most of the people here order drinking water in 20L bottles. Bottles are not thrown away, but collected and reused by water company. We spend about 150$/year*person on this, including delivery costs.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right, that's one thing I missed. Water bottle prices are determined on a country-level (I assume average bottle prices are higher in Moscow, I should show them ideally on a city-level) and I'm assuming people are buying 1.5L bottles for simplicity's sake. I am planning to provide a calculator soon to add more flexibility to the savings calculations.

<comment> _-___________-_ I've lived in many places where the tap water is not safe to drink, and in all those places, nobody except tourists was buying 1.5L bottles of water.

<comment><USER5> In Germany, tap water has super high quality but people still buy 1 liter bottles, because fancy name or sparkling. I appreciate the pro-nature advertisement!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is nice! However I don't think it's very accurate to put a number to a whole country, when even the health of the pipes in your own house or even in your neighborhood can affect the quality a lot.

<comment><USER7> I agree. Our tap water in Portland, Oregon is superb. But when I travel to other states, like California, I'm not sure how they can drink their tap water. At least in Southern California it tastes bad and has the distinct smell of chlorine. Though I suppose if you live with it 24/7 you might get used to it and not notice the taste.

<comment><USER8> Funny you'd say, I live in Portland, Oregon, and we do not drink the water, except after filtering or heating. We think we've seen enough negative reporting on the water quality, even if it's just touchy-feel reporting about the dead birds in the uncovered water treatment basins. To us, the water doesn't even taste as good as maybe in, say, the Netherlands. Yes, chlorine taste at times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > By continuing you agree to our use of cookies

In what pertains to the EU, that might not be legal and may lend you in trouble. If you haven't yet, you should make sure you're allowed to do that (or even better, don't do it).

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, thanks, I missed that! TBH I need to brush up on GDPR law. FYI The website itself is not using any cookies, but GA and the Crisp chat are using them.

</comment></comment><comment> vanilla-almond It would be interesting to add statistics for consumption of bottled water for individual countries where this data is available. Bottled water is consumed in many countries even when the quality of tap water is perfectly safe.

For example, here is per capita consumption of bottled water in Europe in 2017, by country:

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/455422/bottled-water- con...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/455422/bottled-water-consumption- in-europe-per-capita/)

<comment><USER10> Note that this includes sparkling water. At least in Germany, I would estimate >80% of bottled water being sold to be sparkling.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting, I'll look into that! Sparkling water might be indeed a reason why people buy bottled water, although there are household solutions for that as well.

<comment><USER11> Well, above 'sparking water' was written, but 'mineral water' was meant. Sold in bottles and in restaurants and commonly purchased is indeed mineral water. What you can easily do at home is carbonize the water and make it sparkling, without, of course, the (real or imagined) health benefits and different taste of mineral water.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice. One thought... the greatest "oh that's neat" payoff for me was seeing a note that in some county, bottled water was widely available. And in another, not. Which prompted me to wonder which countries that was/wasn't true for, and how it relates to tap quality. But the UI didn't seem to make that easy to explore.

So perhaps pull more information up to the top level? At least on desktop?

One pattern of use is "exploring the world". On desktop, this might involve clicking once to get the little popup, with a side-effect of unpredictably zooming and panning the map; then clicking again to get an info page; and then back page to return to the map. For every country of interest.

I wonder if this could be made lighter weight? The country outline is nicely highlighted upon mouseover. One might imagine adding much of the info page core content, somewhat abbreviated, to a slightly larger popup. And even showing that popup upon mouseover (with perhaps a delay, or mouse velocity tracking for intent). So then one might simply mouse move around the world, seeing water quality, bottle availability, etc, and able to more easily spot "oh that's neat".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your thoughts! I'll try and make it easier to "explore the world" as you said, definitely going to remove the "zoom in". I initially tried to keep the data shown on the map compact to keep the page load time reasonable, I'll see what I can do!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hey man, really like it. Found out that the water where I am might be a bit sketchy - didn't know.

What are you using for the city/country autocomplete?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, glad you like it!

Yes I am using Awesomplete with some custom CSS and loading the autocomplete results on page load (I figured that's more performant in my case than loading it on each keystroke).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Something like this is interesting, but I find it's missing a lot of the info that I care about. For example, here in Denmark, because our underground is chalk instead of rock, our water has high amounts of calcium - this makes the water 'hard', which means we can rinse off soap very easily in the shower, but most of our water-appliances and coffee machines struggle with limescale, and towels need to be washed with a lot of fabric softener or they will come out kinda stiff and scratchy. I'm sure there are other local concerns such as this (e.g. chlorine levels) that would be nice to look up.

<comment><USER15> Taking 'hard' water for granted since I was born, it's quite surprising and interesting that water cannot rinse off the soap.

This year I went abroad for a business trip. In the hotel, after washing my hands or taking showers, I found I couldn't rinse off the soap. I was so confused because it was so hard to do it, plus I brought my own soap. I inspected, smelled, and tasted the water carefully and didn't find any difference. In the end, I learned there is such a thing called 'hard' water.

<comment><USER16> I live in an area of "soft" water. I knew of the concept but I had no idea it affected the rinsing off of soap. I had also never noticed that soap might have rinsed off easier when traveling. (And even if I had, I'd probably just have assumed the soap to be different.)

Conversely, I suppose the buildup of limescale might surprise me if I were to spend time in an area where water is significantly "harder".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm dubious about the Numbeo value for the UK - 75.36 / 100 seems pretty low. UK tap water is of an extremely high standard.

<comment> _-___________-_ It's of a high standard, but I wouldn't say _extremely_ high. Many places with lower population and large amounts of deep aquifer water have much better quality water than the UK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It'd be interesting to know how much chlorine, if any, is added to make the tap water potable. There are many places in the world where it's perfectly _safe_ to drink the tap water, but not pleasant.

<comment><USER19> When I was travelling in Canada I was checking if the water was safe to drink. And the government website argued it was safe to drink tapwater precisely because it was purified with the help of chlorine. In Netherlands many of us have the opposite view that it's not safe to drink tapwater if there is chlorine in it (let alone the taste). Interesting contrasts in cultures :)

<comment><USER20> I think you may have misunderstood. It is pretty standard to use chlorine in the purification process, but that chlorine is not left in the water. There should be negligible chlorine in any water coming out of the tap. I've certainly never been able to smell it let alone taste it anywhere in Canada.

<comment><USER19> I could have misunderstood! But when you can smell it when you shower and taste it when you drink it, there is a considerable amount of residue of chemicals in the water. Maybe I smell it because I'm used to water without it. I don't know if it's actually harmful, but when there are alternatives widely deployed, for instance in the Netherlands I don't see the reason for taking the risk.

<comment><USER20> Canada is a very large country with a wide variety of water. I'm quite surprised that you were somewhere where you were able to smell/taste chlorine in the water as that has not been my experience, but at least one other commenter seems to agree with you. That said, small amounts of chlorine are perfectly safe.

<comment> _-___________-_ I grew up in a city where chlorine is not used. In Canada, and almost every other country I've lived in, I can clearly taste the chlorine in the water, while locals always insisted it was tasteless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems to be by city and not by country. For example, Toronto and Mississauga Ontario, Canada, have different ratings. The initial map is by country, but that's a given.

I was initially surprised by the Toronto/Mississauga results, but then I remembered Mississauga had one of the best mayors they could have possibly asked for, until she retired after serving her office for 36 years. She must have been doing something right.

</comment><comment><USER22> One thing i found interesting while living in Dubai was that (from what I heard) the water authorities provided potable water to buildings, but most buildings had dubious storage/distribution.

I always bought bottled water there, that decision felt justified when my water came out sandy one day. (Though I suspect the building). I had friends who drank tap water for years and were okay, so mileage varies.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very interesting fact, thanks for that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In many parts of New York City, the water contains tiny bugs called copepods[1] (actually a rather interesting bug).

For some, that is an issue. For some that is an advantage (protein!!). For most, it makes no difference.

But I wonder how common such a thing is outside NY, and what other surprises our water contains.

[1] [https://www.foxnews.com/science/whats-in-your-water- probably...](https://www.foxnews.com/science/whats-in-your-water-probably- tiny-invisible-shrimp)

</comment><comment><USER24> [https://www.iswatersafetodrink.in/fiji](https://www.iswatersafetodrink.in/fiji)

LOL GTFO. This is nonsense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, can you tell me why? Don't know specifics about Fiji.

<comment><USER24> > The municipal water supply in Suva, Nadi and other large towns is > chlorinated and can usually be trusted, but elsewhere avoid untreated tap > water.

This is true everywhere in the world, is it not? What are you judging if not the municipal water supply?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is sourced from Lonelyplanet and to my judgment this means tap water is drinkable in larger towns, while it's not in smaller towns in general.

This is not the same across the world, in countries like Switzerland, for example, you can drink the tap water virtually anywhere, while in some African countries this is not even true for the capital cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's interesting how many places have contradictory advice depending on who you're listening to.

Eg. Hong Kong: WHO says it's safe. CDC says it isn't.

One suggestion: If the top-level advice is that water from a country (eg. Japan) is that it's safe, it would be useful to call out particular places in that country where it isn't. (eg. Fukushima in the case of Japan)

<comment><USER26> WHO's index of 96/100 for Russia (contradicting all other sources) makes me question WHO methodology or sources. I get that my personal experience cannot be authoritative source (except for myself) and is purely a single data point at best, but still...

Russia is a vast country, but as a former local (north-west region) I'd say that it's generally not a good idea to drink tap water there. I haven't talked much about water quality intentionally, but I believe everyone I know holds a similar opinion, and doesn't drink unboiled tap water.

It could be "safe" in a sense that one probably won't get sick from occasionally drinking it, but anecdotally - in comparison to bottled water, tap water is of questionable quality just about everywhere in Russia.

Unless we talk about separate kitchen taps with reverse osmosis systems. Even then, most people I know, don't drink that water directly but only use that to fill the kettle for boiling.

<comment><USER27> A lot of Russians also believe things like drinking water with ice cubes will give you a sore throat. I wouldn't put too much stock in something just because the locals believe it.

Personally, I think the water boiling thing is one of the dumber things they do because, at least in most of the big cities, the thing that is most likely to be wrong with the water is not bacteria and other things that would be killed by boiling your water but rather heavy metals (and, last I checked, boiling my water does not remove lead!).

Also, anecdotally, I've yet to die from drinking from drinking unfiltered Tomsk tap water & never noticed abnormal levels of anything nasty during blood work. I think there is a lot of paranoia about the water system here that has generally been undeserved over the past decade or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I call bullshit omn that map. The water in the us tastes like cholrine and is better rated than the one in germany and bosnia, which both don't have that. Also the water is not adviced to be drank from tap in portugal where i was recently, and it is rated with 80?!?!?

<comment><USER11> Tap water quality differs from one municipality to another, so I wonder about the value of a map by county. E.g., in Germany the quality is generally good, almost universally safe to drink, but in some rural areas with intense agriculture, the water might be so rich in nitrates, that occasionally (seasonally?) it is recommended that pregnant women and small children drink bottled water.

The taste and suitability to make tea differs wildly w/o impacting health (matter of carbon content). And it's not quite clear to me, whether the amount of chlorine should affect the listed water quality. Some people are sensitive to it, I'm not. And you can always let it sit for a while and the chlorine will evaporate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Thank you for not calling it a heat map.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was so close to doing that before finding the correct term :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> As others have noted, it would be cool to see this broken down into more meaningful units.

You won't be able to map out every individual house with it's copper/plastic/lead piping, but watershed maps might be nice for this. Also would look way cooler. :)

</comment><comment><USER31> Try [https://MyTapWater.org](https://MyTapWater.org) or [https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/](https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/) for better info in the US

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for those links! It seems [https://www.data.gov/](https://www.data.gov/) is a great source for US tap water data used by both websites!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looks good, but probably not very usable. I know some areas in germany, where you cannot drink the water because of too much chalk. But in general it is very good in germany.

But in spain for example I could never find a tab, I could drink of - way too much chlorine.

<comment><USER33> >where you cannot drink the water because of too much chalk

Is this a taste issue or a health issue?

<comment><USER32> Well, for me, that would be allmost the same, as I believe taste has a biological reason, as a strong indicator whether something is good or bad for my health. (no, pure sugar does not taste good for me)

But officially science says currently no, chalk in water is not a health issue and maybe even good.

(but I would not be surprised, if that changes in the future, like with many other things)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is ridiculous man, the size of Australia, how can you sum it up to one number and compare it to the rest of the world. Just ends up saying a binary system of drinkable <> gives you the run.

</comment><comment><USER35> Belgium having the same quality on the map as the Netherlands shows me that the source of then information is wrong or the scale isn't nuanced enough to be of any use to me. Belgian tap water should, on any scale, be at least a category lower than Dutch tap water.

Belgian tap water is horrible compared to Dutch water. Source: I lived in Brussels for 5 years. Could be just the brusselonian water, but there is a reason that bottles water is a thing that everyone buys in Belgium and practically nobody buys in the Netherlands.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right, I should have specified that tap water quality doesn't include the taste of it.

Apart from that Belgium tap water is perfectly safe to drink! I don't know specifics about the tap water in Belgium but something as simple as a carbon filter removes Chlorine and a lot of the bad taste!

I have been to Belgium before, to Brussels and Leuven, as far as I remember I liked the tap water better in Leuven, but that's just anecdotal. What I want to say with that is that tap water usually varies from area to area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Huh, the water in Saint Pierre and Miquelon is only 91/100, worse than the US and Canada.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is awesome. It would be nice to be able to see the quality by state/city too.

<comment><USER38> Click on the country and then "find out more"

<comment><USER37> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "Explore other Countries in Australia".</comment>


Obama: 'America's war in Iraq will be over' at year's end - <AUTHOR> http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/21/source-almost-all-u-s-troops-out-of-iraq-by-years-end/

<comment><USER2> Didn't he promise it would end immediately after he would win in 2008? Fool me once...

<comment><USER3> PolitiFact.com says "by the end of 2011" [1]. Looks like this announcement puts him on track to meet this campaign promise on the nose.

PolitiFact also has a more comprehensive set of Obama's campaign promises kept and broken [2]. Interestingly enough, most of the broken promises seem to be directly related to the GOP's efforts to keep the Bush tax cuts and prevent Obama from increasing spending for education, health care, environmentalism, and humanitarianism. [3]

[1] [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/promises/obameter/pr...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/promises/obameter/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/)

[2] <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/>

[3] [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/promises/obameter/ru...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/)</comment></comment>


Catalogue of FOSS applications for Android - <AUTHOR> http://f-droid.org/ <comment><USER2> Not just a catalogue, an alternate market with only FOSS applications.</comment>