Starsky Robotics Becomes First Uncrewed Truck to Hit 55 MPH - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/tech/28520/starsky-robotics-becomes-first-unmanned-truck-to-hit-55-mph <comment><USER2> For those unaware, this part is key:

"Unlike some other "driverless" truck companies, Starsky isn't building a completely autonomous solution. Instead, it uses teleoperation to remotely drive the truck between freight depots and the freeway where a highway-only automated driving system takes over."

Starsky is doing really impressive work, but the trucks aren't designed to be 100% autonomous 100% of the time. I think this is a great solution to the last-mile problem for freight logistics, however.

<comment><USER3> I was wondering when teleoperation was going to be taken seriously to plug the gaps in full autonomy.

If Starsky is successful, I suspect this will be used a lot of places. For instance:

Image vision detects a police officer. Maybe a police officer doing hand signals. Immediately switches to teleop (with last several seconds replayed) if in a safe situation to do so. Corner case: solved.

<comment><USER4> Pretty much all of the self-driving car companies use remote assistance to help out with difficult cases and have been for years. The other companies just realize it's another tool in the arsenal with its own limitations, whereas Starsky seems to push hard on it being the magic sauce.

The problem with remote assistance is it's only useful for static scenarios, like getting a vehicle unstuck. It can't help you make a left turn due to lag (cellular networks are not reliable for real-time safety critical systems), but it can tell you whether or not you can proceed after stopping for a paper bag in the middle of the road.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Starsky engineer here. We spent a few days getting all of our emergency procedures in place and testing all fail-safe aspects of our system on the road in preparation of the run. We've done unmanned runs before (also in Florida), but at much lower speed and with a vastly less sophisticated emergency system.

Happy to answer any questions

<comment><USER5> Are you worried about (cargo-)theft? The way I imagine it: \- (assumption) it takes less criminal energy to steal something when no human observer is around \- lonely road in the middle of nowhere \- well known driving behaviour means it is easy to stop (overtake, then slow down to a halt?) \- enable mobile phone jammer (optional) \- take cargo

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure how we're thinking about this now internally. If there was such a technologically adept actor targeting us I'd be more worried personally about safety than the cargo itself.

<comment><USER6> It's probably best not to comment about it anyway, except to make vague mumblings about Higgs-Field-detailed sensors and death rays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Remote truck driving sounds like a scary job, driving a heavy vehicle capable of causing major fatal accidents, via tech that could lag or drop out at any time, with none of the tactile feedback that you normally get from a vehicle?

What does the interface look like? 2D screens (no depth perception), or something more VR-like with stereoscopic vision and head tracking?

<comment><USER8> You can see a version (maybe old) of the UI in this video - [https://youtu.be/rFEmj6Wks7c](https://youtu.be/rFEmj6Wks7c)

<comment><AUTHOR> There are updated videos of our UI floating around the internet. This one is pretty recent: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HtOhbMSv5c&amp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HtOhbMSv5c&amp)

Excuse the mood lighting, we're experimenting with eye-strain on the remote drivers.

<comment><USER9> Starsky engineer here. We are actively hiring developers to work on this system (we call it "tele-operation" internally).

I'm currently (this afternoon) working on driving the latency of the communication in this system down even further by stripping it down to bare socket programming. We'd love to meet anyone who's done RTS games, first- person shooters, or anything else that involves keeping moderate amounts of state synchronized over medium-latency networks. :)

<comment><USER10> I've done a small amount, but mostly as hobbyist stuff.

If you haven't looked at it already, Glen Fiedler has a great series on game networking on his Gaffer on Games blogs that covers a lot of those topics in ways that were really helpful for my implementations. [https://gafferongames.com/tags/networking/](https://gafferongames.com/tags/networking/)

It looks like his site is down, but it's also available on the internet archive: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190405204744/https://gafferong...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190405204744/https://gafferongames.com/tags/networking/). It's all fairly high-level stuff, and I'm sure it mostly just retreads ground that you're familiar with, but I thought the explanations were all super-clear and helped crystallize a lot of thoughts that I already had but hadn't focused that well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One thing I like about their business model is that it isn't just the autonomous/teleoperation tech, but also that they're a full-service trucking company. That kind of integration should hopefully allow them to provide the same service as a normal trucking company but with much lower cost.

Even if the company just serves long-haul routes from depots in less congested areas very close to freeway on-ramps, that's still a huge market, and the labor cost savings would likely be huge if humans are just driving from the depot to the freeway.

Related, I was thinking about the idea of teleoperation for drone deliveries recently as well. The same kind of "last mile" problem exists for landing cargo from a drone. Have the drone fly from the warehouse to the customer location, and then pass it over to someone sitting in their house with a joystick to control landing and delivery of the cargo. Once the delivery is complete and the drone is airborne again, have it fly autonomously back to the depot. Pay people $1/landing or something like that.

The last mile is going to be the hardest part of any of these autonomous businesses. The hybrid teleoperation model where the computer handles the relatively easy (but mundane) parts makes total sense.

</comment><comment><USER12> Personally, I'm most worried that this will reduce the attention or personal responsibility that a driver would normally have --- if you're actually in the vehicle, anything that goes wrong has a very real chance of injuring you, possibly fatally; whereas if you're safely sitting far away, then you may feel like nothing can happen to you even if your vehicle gets into a horrible crash (you may get arrested, but there's no immediate risk of death from doing anything wrong.) That lack of subconscious fear for your own life is IMHO not at all a good thing, because I think it's really that --- and not the law --- that keeps most drivers on the road from being dangerous and compels them to attention.

<comment><USER13> I personally don't like crashing my RC car or quadcopters, either- it isn't something I like to do. I'm also a new driver, and I've had several near misses. One of the possibilities with tele-op is that someone entirely different can take over if someone else falls asleep, messes up, or does something belligerent. Technology is a double-edged sword.

<comment><USER12> _is that someone entirely different can take over_

That doesn't solve the "hand-over" problem --- which I already mentioned in another comment here --- if you were suddenly given control of a moving car headed in a dangerous direction, how long would it take to assess the situation enough to make a decision on what to do? You have to be already paying attention to react in reasonable amount of time.

Of course there is the "workaround" of having multiple (alert) drivers per vehicle, but that seems more trouble than it's worth just to avoid putting a single driver in a vehicle. (In addition, as all the stories about self- driving-car accidents have shown, even when people are in the vehicle itself, they don't tend to pay as much attention if they already have the "someone/thing else is driving" notion anyway.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maneuvering a truck in an urban area looks really hard for a by-stander. The proposition here is to do it with remote control, that sounds even harder. On second thought, it might be an easily solvable problem with the proper sensors and UI.

<comment><USER15> That's exactly what I was thinking, I can't imagine driving a semi on a busy road, let alone doing so remotely.

Then again based on those pictures the operates have far better views around their truck then you would sitting in it.

But then again the UX of looking around vs a computer screen has to be another hurtle.

<comment><USER14> I've seen a video of experimental tech where a military humvee had a 360 array of cameras, whose feeds were collaged into a live 3rd person perspective feed. I think the humvee also had all its windows boarded up. The idea was for the crew not to use in-vehicle perspectives at all. I could see that working when you have to do tricky slow speed maneuvering. A top down view, where you could also see projections of how the truck would shift given different steering angles.

<comment><USER16> > _360 array of cameras, whose feeds were collaged into a live 3rd person > perspective feed_

The parking cameras on high-end cars have already evolved from a simple top- down view (which is now an option even on entry-level cars) to a 3rd person perspective 3D view, complete with a little 3D model of the car [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FyjVphbHAL0/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FyjVphbHAL0/maxresdefault.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm guessing this is being driven on a closed off express lane, but the fact that the video image shows signs facing the "wrong way" makes it look like the truck is going the wrong way on the highway.

</comment><comment><USER18> > Unlike some other "driverless" truck companies, Starsky isn't building a > completely autonomous solution. Instead, it uses teleoperation to remotely > drive the truck between freight depots and the freeway where a highway-only > automated driving system takes over. ...

The video hints at "lane keeping." How much automation is involved?

However much it is, it's not hard to imagine a smooth transition between remote operation and autonomous driving over time. Each iteration would eliminate one more thing the driver needs to be concerned with until nothing is left.

</comment><comment><USER19> What I don't understand about this solution is that if you have full automation on the highways then what you need isn't really remote control for the rest, all you need is to get regulation change so that drivers aren't considered to be driving during autonomous periods. In most of Europe this would mean you could have a driver in the vehicle but they could use the long periods of automated highway driving as their rest time meaning they can travel almost non-stop, as opposed to how they operate at the moment where they are forced to pull over for several hours a day.

</comment><comment><USER20> >Because of that focus we've been able to develop a highly reliable SAE Level 2 system and a highly reliable teleoperation and supervision system, and it turns out that's all you need.

level 2!

</comment><comment><USER21> Interesting to see the ubiquitous dual antennas on the side mirrors preserved here--- ostensibly no longer for CB, but for tele-operation.

</comment><comment><USER22> It seems to me there are two smart ways to go about this. One is Startsky's path of starting their own company. The other is a company like Tesla teaming up with one or more existing big trucking companies, which would be motivated to do that to lower costs and overcome their huge problems hiring drivers.

</comment><comment><USER23> So how do you gas it up? Full service stations are rare outside of NJ these days.

</comment><comment><USER24> The cybersecurity implications here are chilling, it's only a matter of time before a hacker takes over a truck and drives it into a crowd from a remote location. Where there is a shell, there is a way.

</comment><comment><USER25> An amazing accomplishment. Your entire team should be justifiably proud.

</comment><comment><USER26> Does it have a Hutch at the back?

</comment><comment><USER27> One would assume Tesla has tested their semi somewhere?

</comment><comment><USER28> Amazing accomplishment, well done!</comment>


The Computer Security Threat From Ultrasonic Networks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/94e3fd13ebd1

<comment><USER2> "The concept of a covert acoustical mesh network renders many conventional security concepts useless"

I am curious how much real security expertise the quoted researches have. Conventional security measures would work great with this new communication layer: removing speakers/mics will be as effective as removing a network card/usb ports/floppy drives which is a common technique for protecting sensitive computers and data (and it is known for ages). Same goes to access control (who can listen to speakers or use network card). Same goes to firewalls (stop unexpected traffic or unexpected sound). And the list goes on and on.</comment>


Line Mappings (CoffeeScript) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/pull/2050

<comment><USER2> Can anyone explain how this is done? (I've tried reading the commit and it makes no sense to me without context)

What kind of hints does the CS compiler need to emit for the JS engine?</comment>


Why Did The Media Keep The Recent Peaceful Icelandic Revolution Quiet? - <AUTHOR> http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/11/why-did-media-keep-the-recent-peaceful-icelandic-revolution-quiet/ <comment> brown9-2 Which is an easier explanation to believe?

1\. The "media" got together and said to each other, "We better not cover this story at all, because it will give too many people dangerous ideas"

or

2\. Media outlets individually (particularly in the US) decided not to cover the actions of the Icelandic government because they think most of their viewers don't care much about Iceland and/or because "check out what has slowly been happening in Iceland over the past 5 years" isn't much of a breaking news story.

This story _has_ been covered, but just because it isn't to the extent that you wish it was covered does not mean a conspiracy must exist.

NPR did a story on Iceland just two days ago: [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/01/170867071/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/01/170867071/episode-435-a-new- mom-and-the-president-of-iceland)

<comment><USER2> Those are not the only two options, you know.

There is a systematic method to deciding which stories are covered by MSM outlets and which aren't. It is not a coincidence that most outlets chose not to cover the Iceland story, regardless of it being a very small country.

Not everything is a "conspiracy", and failure to acknowledge that there are certain forces at play is a blatant misunderstanding of the role MSM plays in public brainwashing.

<comment><USER3> There isn't a single piece of substance in what you just said, just a bunch of vague proclamation and accusations about "public brainwashing" by the "MSM". Your post reads exactly like a hand-wavey paranoid conspiracy theorist except you're saying you're not a conspiracy theorist. Maybe you should be a bit more specific instead of this rambling nonsense about how you are enlightened and all the regular people are brainwashed.

<comment><USER4> Because it's possible, it must be true! Who cares if there's no hard evidence.

<comment><USER5> Besides, the simplest answer is that "the media" is selfish, desperate, and cheap. Original coverage, coverage that requires remote HQs, deep coverage is not a priority and those departments were probably axed ten years ago.

<comment><USER6> "Selfish, desperate, and cheap."

Yes, exactly. As someone who knows the media world better than he'd like to, I cannot think of a more succinct or generally applicable characterization. You, sir, have nailed it.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the opinion, I'm well outside of that but would love to find good sources with more signal than noise.

<comment><USER6> I'd like to stress that this is by no means a fair characterization of all the people who work in media. There are a awful lot who push against this current every day. Some of them (on occasion) win. But it tends to be a fight, and the victories invariably seem like minor miracles.

When they're not winning (which is frequent), and thinking "what the fuck am I doing here?" (also frequent) chances are good that whoever or whatever they're getting snowed by can be fairly described just the way you did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Previous discussion (less ideologic hyperbole):

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4683804>

Draft text:

[http://stjornlagarad.is/other_files/stjornlagarad/Frumvarp-e...](http://stjornlagarad.is/other_files/stjornlagarad/Frumvarp- enska.pdf)

Interesting excerpts:

(14) _"All are free to have their opinions and convictions and shall have the right to express their thoughts. Censorship and other comparable impediments to the freedom of opinion must never be enacted into law. Limits on the expression of opinion may, however, be stipulated by law to protect children, security, health, the rights or reputation of others, as necessary in a democratic society."_

(18) _"All shall be free to pursue their religion, individually or in association with others, publicly or privately. The freedom to pursue religion or personal convictions shall only be limited by law as necessary in a democratic society."_

(20) _"No one may be obligated to be a member of an association. Such obligation may be imposed by law if it proves necessary for an association to perform its lawful role due to the public interest or the rights of others."_

<comment><USER8> so you have these rights but the govenment can over rule it for "public interest" or "as necessary in a democratic society"

I am sure that the Chinese leaders would say that the labour camps are "as necessary in a democratic society"

Oh and that old chestnut its for the children

<comment><USER9> There isn't a nation on earth that doesn't have some workaround, be it martial law or these special clauses. Adding that it is only for things that are necessary in a democratic society is a good touch, because it makes it harder to make arbitrary restrictions because it's for the "general public good".

<comment><USER8> oh I agree but who defines what is "necessary" and looking at the nordic states (iclelands constitution is based on the danish constitution) they can be very communitarian and the down side of those systems sis they can be very unforgiving of outsiders and those that do not fit in.

<comment><USER10> I didn't do more than read the first page or two, but there appears to be a Supreme Court. Presumably, it's their job. That's generally how these things work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Actually, I do recall stories about revolution in Iceland. Which is why I was so surprised to see this article use the word "peaceful" revolution. I recall riots in Iceland making a big stir back in 2009. Indeed, after a quick Google search I found this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Icelandic_financial_crisis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Icelandic_financial_crisis_protests).

Snippet from the Wikipedia article:

"On 20 January 2009, the protests intensified into riots. Between 1,000 and 2,000 people clashed with riot police, who used pepper spray and batons, around the building of the parliament (Althing), with at least 20 people being arrested and 20 more needing medical attention for exposure to pepper spray.[3][11] Demonstrators banged pots and honked horns to disrupt the year's first meeting of Prime Minister Geir Haarde and the Althing. Some broke windows of the parliament house, threw skyr and snowballs at the building, and threw smoke bombs into its backyard.[2][3][12] The use of pots and pans saw the local press refer to the event as the 'Kitchenware Revolution'.[13]"

[2] ^ a b Gunnarsson, Valur (21 January 2009). "Icelandic lawmakers return to work amid protests". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 31 January 2009. Retrieved 22 January 2009.

[3] ^ a b c "Iceland protesters demand government step down". Reuters. 20 January 2009. Archived from the original on 3 February 2009. Retrieved 22 January 2009.

[12] ^ "Icelanders held over angry demo". BBC. 21 January 2009. Archived from the original on 24 January 2009. Retrieved 22 January 2009

[13] ^ Ian Parker, Letter from Reykjavík, "Lost," The New Yorker, 9 March 2009, p. 39.

<comment><USER12> As far as "revolutions" go, I'd call tossing a few eggs and yogurt and maybe burning a tree or two rather peaceful. There was one night where everything went crazy (when we burned down the Norwegian Christmas tree... sorry about that, Norway) and threw rocks at Alþingi, but other than that, it was mostly just family people banging pots and pans.

In Iceland, it's known as the "Búsáhaldabylting" which basically means "kitchen appliance revolution", if that gives you any idea of what it was like. (edit: you already stated that in your post)

Edit:

To elaborate some more... most of the people who were arrested, or those who were pepper sprayed were nothing more than opportunistic (often young) people taking advantage of the situation. Some of them were self declared "anarchists" or had some kind of "fuck-the-system" attitude. Most of them probably had little stake in what was happening. this was in contrast to most of the peaceful protesters, they were family people protesting how the govt. handled the bank collapse.

These people had just lost their life savings, their house, their car and were left with insane debt. I went, and protested for my parent, whose debt have now doubled because of the inflation. I showed my anger, I threw rocks, I screamed, we were all pretty angry.

But only a very small group of people were actually violent, and you could literally point out who was there for a valid protest and who was just looking for an excuse to fight the police.

\--

Addendum: What you may not understand is that loans in Iceland are "insured". That's good... if you're a bank, but if you're a n individual, it's bad... very bad.

It basically means that, in addition to interest, your loan principal increases by the amount of inflation. So if the inflation is 5%, voila, your loan is now 5% higher. Now realize that inflation went as high as 18.6%, which means your 4% interest loan just went up 18.6 + 4 = 22.6% in one year.

There are associations currently suing the banks and the govt. to try and make this form of loan illegal.

<comment><USER13> I wonder if that "insurance" was the same cunning plan as the UK banks selling interest rate swaps alongside loans to small businesses?

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21275527>

<comment><USER14> Not quite the same thing but a bad idea for the consumer nonetheless. Our loans are price-index fixed. There is a consumer index calculated by our benevolent government organization that calculates the index based on the sale value of common household goods and essential costs like the price of gasoline. This mean that if the government raises gas taxes (like they did here - twice) that in turn causes your loan interest to rise. Ingenious, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The main issue is

There's no more "the media". The internet is the media.

We are the media (yes, even HN), and remember, with power comes responsibility.

Still, some media outlets have more penetration than others, however, the story still gets told.

But it's the 'big media' that's losing relevance and paying the price.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't know , but that sounds a lot like the decmocratic process and not revolution. In america we have done all of those thiogs over the years, with the one aside that we have always managed to pay our debts, and we haven't mothballed the _entire_ constitution all in one go.

<comment><USER17> You've always managed to pay your debts?

You didn't even try to check that with Google that did you?

<http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29270.html>

<comment><USER16> But take a look at each of those cases. In every one it was _citizens_ who didn't get paid back. Each time they did it so that they could pay back the foreign investors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Iceland is a special case. It is tiny, with only 320,000 inhabitants. That is 1/1000th of the population of the US. And the population is also highly homogeneous. The fact that they can pull off a peaceful "revolution" like this doesn't mean anything for the majority of countries in the world.

<comment><USER19> True, Iceland is tiny. Barely a country one might say. But the argument of size needs more motivation, why does size matter?

Although I tend to agree with the sentiment. We always hear the same arguments: yes [solution for a big problem] works great in [scandinavian country] but it is so small and homogeneous, the same could never work in [larger european country or USA]. Surely measures that have been applied successfully elsewhere, even in a small country, are more likely to succeed here too?

<comment><USER20> The Icelandic political system is certainly helped by the fact that Iceland is small, because it means that politician are closer to their constituents and therefore more likely to act in their interest.

Furthermore, organizing effective social movements does not scale very well. Organizing 1000 truly active participants - by which I mean people who are willing to do more than just tweet and write blog posts - is as difficult in Iceland as it is in the US, but in Iceland that already gets you close to 1% of the population, whereas in the US it is basically nothing.

The same arguments don't really apply to topics like health care, because the limits of social organization are not as important there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think there has been a decent amount of reporting in the Netherlands and the UK. Mostly because all of this is about _their_ money.

Let's not pretend this "revolution" is about anything other than the Icelandic people not willing to pay for the failures of the government they elected.

<comment><USER20> _Let's not pretend this "revolution" is about anything other than the Icelandic people not willing to pay for the failures of the government they elected._

From my understanding, this is not quite true. Icelandic banks defaulted on debts towards foreigners, the Icelandic government was being pressured into taking over those debts - even though there was no legal obligation to do so - and the Icelandic people revolted against this.

So: Private entities screwed up - both the banks and non-Icelandic bank customers who misplaced their trust in those banks - and so private entities were morally responsible for taking the losses. The Icelandic people simply did their part to ensure that capitalism works properly, even though it required going against their government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Why Did The Media Keep The Recent Peaceful Icelandic Revolution Quiet?"

Why ask such a question when they already know the answer?

Try finding any resoures that the rest of the world (I.E. Super powers) would like to exploit : [http://www.iceland.is/the-big-picture/nature- environment/nat...](http://www.iceland.is/the-big-picture/nature- environment/natural-resources/)

Nothing interesting? Well there you go.

I was born in Sri Lanka, where there were open conflicts in a civil war going back to 1984 (I was 2 years old) and riots back to the 70's. Did the West care? Nope... Again, nothing much the rest of the world is intersted in. And unlike the "peaceful revolution", a lot of people died :

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Ci...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War)

In all the years I've spent in the U.S. I could find 1 or 2 mentions on CNN maybe, but that's about it.

I hate to put it in these terms, but unless there's actual interest to the rest of the world and resources at stake, no one really cares. It's the cold hard truth.

Same with the war in Darfur... Which incidentally has been going on as open conflict since 2003, but tensions and clashes go back to 1991. Did you hear about it back then?

<comment><USER23> Is the war in Darfur still even going on?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why is HN driving traffic to a vaccine scare site? <http://www.collective- evolution.com/category/health/>

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm not unaware of the events mentioned as well as other stories such as the election if their current PM.

I feel this has been covered a lot across the BBC and NYTimes

<comment><USER26> As the UK is a part in this, do you feel BBC gives an opinionated view, or do they manage to be objective and neutral?

It would be interesting to know from someone who has been following them.

<comment><USER27> The biggest journalistic failing of the BBC - who are like the rest of the UK TV media _legally required_ to not editorialise the news - is that they go overboard, and will present two sides to every damn issue. This means they regularly air the views of absolute nut-jobs whose input on stories is batshit-insane, but are included just to try and be fair and balanced.

<comment><USER28> When one of the sides is British, the BBC presents one side, or presents the other side in a completely jaundiced way that omits relevant but inconvenient facts.

<comment><USER27> Could you give an example?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The smaller the country, the easier it is to find common grounds, or to reach a compromise that satisfies all parties.

> An assembly is elected to write a new constitution [...]. The only > qualifications for candidacy are adulthood and the support of 30 people.

This wouldn't work in a large country such as the USA. There are simply too many people with extreme views that would make such an election impossible.

<comment><USER30> Successful democracies are not characterized by allowing every fancy extremist undercurrent arbitrary veto power. In the USA, most controversial decisions are not blocked by extremists, but by representatives who confuse the dominating media presence of extremists with actual representation in the population.

If the republicans would not go to such extreme lengths to accommodate the feelings of every conceivable nut case, they would probably be better off in the long run, and even non-schizophrenics would be able to see some direction in their politics.

<comment><USER31> Above comment is Exhibit A for "how to tell if an article is basically political in nature".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Why Did The Media Keep The Recent Peaceful Icelandic Revolution Quiet?

Because Iceland has a population smaller than Provo-Orem, Utah?

</comment><comment><USER33> I've heard about it, but mostly it's just not as interesting story. Modern mainstream media loves a bit of chaos, some struggle and bloodshed, it sells well for them however people very calmly going about things the right way and being decent human beings. Well, not so much a seller.

However, it probably wouldn't work anywhere with a significantly larger population size. Too many people with their own ideas causes things to fracture along ideological lines, rather than aiming for a common cause.

</comment><comment><USER34> If the media did report on what happened in Iceland, how many people in the US would lift an eyebrow?

I don't know about Europeans or Asians but sadly not many in the US will as I hope.

I know this is purely anecdotal due to the influences of my friends and family in reacting to news like this. Not many of my friends/family are voracious readers on what's happening around the world and want to see how things are done. Even after I would explain to them what happened in Iceland or what we have failed to do with our banking executives, many would simply shrug and say "not much I can do".

I am confident if there was a research done on the attitudes of Americans, we would be dismayed to learn that many don't really care.

So does it really matter if the 'media suppresses' these info when in actually a reader can actually find all sorts of news if he or she bothers to look?

<comment><USER35> I would argue that it's a feeling of 'what can be done?' more than literally not caring.

From what I've read, 1/3 or less of the colonists were in favor of the American revolution. The only reason it happened is because the representatives did not take a vote. Would anybody be surprised if a lot less than that percentage _proactively_ care about their liberty today?

Of the people I know that do really care about what's happening in the US today, most seem to feel helpless to stop it.

<comment><USER36> By the same coin, only about ~1/3 of the colonists were "Loyalists". The remainder didn't necessarily want the revolution but would have aided it had it happened, or would have been OK with the status quo had it been left that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It sounds like they had a nice outcome. But it's important to remember that the population of Iceland is about 320 thousand whereas the population of the US is about 320 million.

I often wonder whether many of the US's problems are simply scaling problems and I wonder how many political scientists see it that way?

</comment><comment><USER38> Our society is clearly in a process of evolution, from feudalism, to an oligarchy, and soon these kind of actions will bring up a real democracy.

Thanks in big part to technology, it is no longer possible for a powerful elite to keep the rest uninformed and uneducated.

<comment><USER39> Oh, of course it's possible. It's just harder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I find it striking that _Al-Jazeera_ (the Arab news network?) did cover it and show an awsome interview with the Icelandic President. "A too strong financial sector takes all the 21st century talent and that is bad"

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=51-Jfh6ADH0)

<comment><USER41> Icelander here. There is nothing awesome about our president. He may seem like a cool guy, but for example he allowed himself to be a PR whore for the banks before the bust, tarnishing the presidency. Now he's all tough on banksters ... ?

The guy put MEDALS - ACTUAL MEDALS - on the corrupt bankers.

Here he is giving the Icelandic Order of the Falcon Cross Medal to the two highest-level execs of Kaupthing Bank: [http://lydveldi.blog.is/img/tncache/250x250/ce/lydveldi/img/...](http://lydveldi.blog.is/img/tncache/250x250/ce/lydveldi/img/utflutningsverdlaun2005_01.jpg) [edit - no, this is the Iceland Commerce and Export Award 2005 he's giving to them - here's a picture of the falcon-cross medal ceremony in 2007: <http://www.forseti.is/media/orginal/aeae7417f17892d.jpg> \- 4th from the right is Kaupthing head Sigurður Einarsson; Björgólfur Guðmundsson received the medal in 2005 (can't find a picture)]

Then he tells lies on behalf of the country in interviews, saying Iceland is doing this or will do that, stuff that just isn't true. He fabricates stuff. As president. Appearing in official capacity.

Even if all he did was to speak overly strongly outwards as effectively- powerless president, thus jeopardizing international relations that officially represented people in actual powers are handling - even if he did only that I would be outraged and would wish for him to resign. He's not just a loudmouth - he's a goddamn _liar_.

Fuck Ólafur.

I understand that people like him. He's charismatic. Thing is that as he is using his time as precident for self-serving PR, he's effectively on a taxpayer-funded campaign to clean up his image and make people like him. You're not aware of his background so he looks good. Please check the guy out before you support him; He hasn't earned any kind of respect yet.

<comment><USER40> Crap. Just another professional politician then I suppose. They should serve two terms: One in office and one in jail...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It may or may not be a conspiracy but i have seen numerous examples where big name media outlets like CNN have made glaring inaccuracies in reporting stories. For example reports on the current situation in Congo(DRC) differ from what local reporters on the ground are reporting and are often merely used as tools in a wider international political game(Push a story to put pressure on a group) [http://in2eastafrica.net/simplistic-narrative-used-to- distor...](http://in2eastafrica.net/simplistic-narrative-used-to-distort-the- truth-about-the-m23-insurgency/).

Also sometimes shocking is the content their editors deem fit for news(Was once shocked to see L.Lohan going to court as a headline story on CNN International, not CNN USA)

Again there might not be a big media club deciding which stories to cover or which agenda to push but individual media houses are clearly biased in their coverage of selected news stories. You just have to watch them long enough to notice it.

</comment><comment><USER43> Please check this recent essay:

What is Actually going on in Iceland [http://studiotendra.com/2012/12/29/what- is-actually-going-on...](http://studiotendra.com/2012/12/29/what-is-actually- going-on-in-iceland/)

Can somebody help and make sense of these contradictory perspectives?

</comment><comment><USER44> I have read 'How the World Works' by Noam Chomsky, and I am shaken at the facts.

</comment><comment><USER45> One critical element that the story did not mention was the imposition of capital controls to enable effective structural reform. This is something that has not been done (at least not collectively) since the post-war period often known as the Golden Age of Capitalism (1945-1971).

Ironically, in the same year the people of Iceland democratically elected to default on sovereign obligations, the IMF released a paper entitled, _"Default in Today's Advanced Economies: Unnecessary, Undesirable, and Unlikely"_ ...

</comment><comment><USER46> Because it was peaceful and therefore, not really all that interesting to a medium that relies on quick attention-grabbing events?

</comment><comment><USER47> The title's assertion is patently untrue.

America's most popular prime time news program (60 Minutes) did a full-length feature on this. It was done a while ago so it has also been in re-runs.

This has not been ignored or otherwise kept quiet by the mainstream media-- quite the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER48> I don't know why, but it is a good example of how small states are still capable of acting in the interest of it's people, while large states are captured by corrupt interests of one sort or another.

</comment><comment><USER49> You wanna know real story no one heard of? This: [1]

[1]<http://www.zeit.de/2010/52/Woergl/komplettansicht>

</comment><comment><USER50> because Iceland is smaller than hicksville, and basically has naturally provided almost free energy... what happens there cannot be duplicated anywhere else.

<comment><USER12> what does free energy have to do with protests?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is a very common copy/paste Internet meme. Google the title and you'll find it has been everywhere for a while.

</comment><comment><USER52> Maybe I have been watching too much 'Newsroom', but

'Isn't it a journalists Job to make relavant News, Relavant to the Public.'

</comment><comment><USER53> Possibly because peace dosen't sell bars of soap and new Chevrolet trucks?

</comment><comment><USER12> Been there, done that :) (I live in Iceland)

</comment><comment><USER54> Better than democracy, where a majority can impose rules on a few, it would be better we had a strict laws that could be learned by 5 year old in under 5 minutes, like, "thou shall not impose your will or arm another".

And then have groups of people that just get together to grow and/or share on some ideals.

github > democracy > republic.

<comment><USER55> Impossible by definition. Any adult can find scores of loopholes in anything that is codified in a way so simple that a 5 year old can learn it in under 5 minutes. If your law is riddled with loopholes, then it can't be "strict" for any definition of the word.</comment></comment>


How a Raspberry Pi Saved My Dead 500gb Western Digital HD - <AUTHOR> http://www.cesarserna.com/how-a-raspberrypi-saved-my-dead-western-digital-500gb-hard-drive/

<comment><USER2> so it was the enclosure that died?</comment>


How to Deal With Brilliant Jerks You Work With - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/02/smart-jerks-old-people-hard-things-company/ <comment><USER3> The good argument against hiring experienced people is that they will be highly opinionated about how they did things before. (Plus, the purely practical concerns around cost and availability) I don't think this closely correlates to age -- a 45 year old consultant who has done short engagements at hundreds of small companies (qsa or something like that) has entirely different characteristics than someone who ran a specific function at one successful company right out of college and nothing else. I'd actually argue the 45yo in that case is less likely to be an "old person" than the 24yo! In a less pathological case, certain roles are probably more likely to make people into jerks (or select for jerks to retain) than other roles.

The argument for is time, and that you might really want those opinions. It just doesn't mesh well with "everyone is equal, we are doing something new, so everyone contributes ideas" way of thinking at the earliest stages, and it is possible the conventional wisdom (or at least the version embodied in the experienced employee) will either be wrong in general, or at least wrong for your specific case now. It is probably more important that "experienced" people be polite and reasonable than that "brilliant" people be polite and reasonable, actually.

The biggest jerks seem to be people who have had one or two early successes and little or no failure.

</comment><comment><USER4> Holy shit. I would never work with/for this writer.

In example one, the writer refuses to take responsibility for the fact that they had unrealistic expectations and encouraged unhealthy behavior. If a guy works for 72 hours straight, you don't _reward him for that_ , you tell him to take 3 days off and get some sleep, because nobody can be productive at a pace like that. At the very least it's incredibly unhealthy for the employee.

In the second example the writer basically is suggesting that you should fire people who speak out against the company. What a ridiculous notion! If your culture is so bad you're producing "heretics", you should probably take a serious review at what you're doing to cause such behavior, and why you couldn't detect and rein it in before they "went public" with their concerns.

In the third example, again, before the "jerk" can "destroy" communication "across the team", why didn't somebody notice and maybe have a talk with this chap? Why not work out counseling, or find new ways to work with the person? There are a lot of avenues available to improve communication between employees. "The pound" is a failure to deal with the communication issue.

The ageism of the rest of his post is just the nail in the coffin. Instead of adapting your culture to support different viewpoints, he suggests filtering out anyone who doesn't think the same. Instead of providing a facility for all employees to come to consensus and work together productively, he suggests you should simply be cautious that the old person could be more politically-savvy than you - essentially, to be 'on your guard' around them. And the idea that an old person has some specific knowledge you need is not only irrational, it ignores the real reason 'old' people have an advantage: they may not have _specific_ knowledge you need, but they have [probably] failed more, which gives them the experience of knowing what doesn't work (in their experience), and to a smaller extent, what does.

Dealing with "geniuses" should be the same as dealing with regular people. If you take an active role in caring about your employees and their experience in your company, you'll find out before problems come to a head, and be able to work out solutions that help everyone. (Or you could just fire anyone that causes you problems, which seems to be his suggestion)

<comment><USER5> >Holy shit. I would never work with/for this writer.

The writer is Ben Horowitz:

>Ben Horowitz is cofounder and partner of Andreessen Horowitz.

Therefore there is a good chance that if you work at a successful Valley startup you are indirectly working for this guy and making him even more disgustingly wealthy from your labour.

<comment><USER4> I don't really care who is becoming wealthy from what. But I will certainly take a more critical look at any company I think of joining that has this guy as a backer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Jesus Christ, is that top picture of a hellish working environment typical? I have a panic attack just looking at it.

Does anyone happen to know what company that is so I know to avoid them like the plague?

EDIT: OK, figured it out, it is Pivotal[0]. I have absolutely no idea what they actually _do_ based on their website, exactly as I would expect for the kind of company that would have that sort of office.

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

<comment><USER6> Hey, if most people were able to study/learn in school like that, why can't they work like that? Just saying. I've pretty much accepted my fate. I will sit on the floor or in circles or in that format, just pay me and pay me well.

<comment><USER5> Because I demand more respect than that from my employer. It is a layout designed to cram the max number of people into the cheapest space. These people are shoulder to shoulder. You have zero privacy and anything you do on your screen 2 other people are going to inevitably see it. In that way it is also your employer enforcing their will on you- you will feel embarrassed to take a perfectly normal break to look at Facebook or Twitter or whatever.

I also dislike that a lot of the spaces there are for people with laptops. I personally would never accept a company laptop. It implies that your employer wants you to work at home or on travel. Fuck that. I want a desktop, and I will work for you when I am in the office. If you want me to work at any other time, pay me to come in.

Stand up for yourself. Start-up culture is increasingly bullshit and toxic, luckily I am getting out in a few weeks and do not intend to return.

<comment><USER7> > Start-up culture is increasingly bullshit and toxic

Does that apply mainly to SV, or have you had/seen similar experiences elsewhere?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love remote companies because they can afford to give their employees the freedom to have drug habits or kids who demand a lot of attention or whatever else. There's no pressure to "keep up appearances" so as long as his communication on git and hipchat is professional and his code quality is high.

In real offices there is too much wasteful drama/noise around 'perceived slackness' that often does not correlate with the actual facts. In a remote environment everyone is being judged on the same time-scale by the same exact criteria which has nothing to do with their age, sex, lifestyle choices, sleep habits, etc.

</comment><comment><USER9> > Most executives can be pricks, dicks, a-holes, or a variety of other profane > nouns at times. Being dramatically impolite can be used to improve clarity > or emphasize an important lesson.

I hate that such behavior is considered normal and acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER10> Didn't Ben Horowitz basically publish this already as Old People? [http://www.bhorowitz.com/old_people](http://www.bhorowitz.com/old_people)

<comment><USER11> Wow, that one is even worse, pure ageism. He might as well write about "when to hire female people" etc. Somewhat sad that "culture" is mostly a meaningless buzzword these days, used mainly to exclude people you don't like.

<comment><USER5> And yet people will listen to this guy because he is a VC and will create cargo cult leadership to hang off his every word.

<comment><USER3> Ben being a VC is a bad reason to give him credibility. His experience at loud cloud and ops ware (and then HP), and generally being smart, is why I find him interesting.

If you read the book, there were only a few fairly badly communicated or stupid parts, and they made a lot more sense in context (it is partially biographical, so he includes mistakes and why they were mistakes).

The "old people" is one of those which made more sense in context. It was a bad idea to let it be pulled out like this, imo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >It turned out that Arthur was bipolar and had two significant drug problems.

Then it's very likely that his extremely productive coding marathons were during manic episodes and/or while abusing stimulants. Certainly not something you would want to bank on either way.

My dad was bipolar and also one of the hardest-working men I knew (even during waves of depression). He actually had a couple (prescription) drug problems too. But when he started up a manic episode, it was still abundantly obvious. Basically what's described in the article- seemingly endless pools of energy and stamina despite little to no sleep, _always_ working on or planning some kind of project (for my dad, it was usually some kind of restoration), and never relaxing.

I think he was probably an exception to the rule, because when he was depressed and taking heavy doses of benzodiazepines, he still managed to get his fair share done. I'm not a psychiatrist and I don't know Arthur, but I'd guess both his absences and drug use stemmed from his depression.

</comment><comment><USER13> Ben's perspective is strongly influenced by his experiences at Netscape and Loudcloud and looking for and funding rocket ships. Are these cultural artifacts - working w/ jerks, hiring young, working 72 hours in a row - <USER2> inevitable outcome of venture funded tech? Are there strong counter examples?

<comment><USER3> If you look at a lot of other highly creative disciplines (art, music, etc), the non linear performance (by person, task, and time) is also common. Temperament, drugs, etc might be factors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Why do we need senior people at all? The short answer is time. Hiring someone who has already done what you are trying to do can radically speed up time to success. But won't they just ruin the culture? This question must be taken seriously. However, bringing in the right kind of experience at the right time can mean the difference between bankruptcy and glory._

Wow, that's offensive.

<comment><USER15> Senior as in age? Or senior as in someone who has the experience?

I interpreted it as the latter... although I live in England and when people mention senior I think of people who has experience.

<comment><USER16> The paragraph heading said 'Old People.' Particularly poignant for me - my dad is highly experienced but was recently laid off and has been searching for a job in the tech sector for months. Ageism in tech is brutal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ignoring the out of place second half of the article...

Whats most troublesome to me about this article is in the first example.

> On his third day, we gave him a project that was scheduled to take one > month. Arthur completed the project in three days with nearly flawless > quality. More specifically, he completed the project in seventy-two hours: > No stops, no sleep, nothing but coding. In his first quarter on the job, he > was the best employee we had and we immediately promoted him.

This is the monkey getting his hand caught in the jar. This is Chewbacca thinking with his stomach and getting hung upside down by Ewoks.

Behavior like Arthur's is unsustainable. The human energy to stay up for 72 hours writing code has to come from somewhere. Burnout in these sort of cases is inevitable.

Why oh why would you promote someone like this before waiting for them to display an ability to be consistent? We should see these sort of things as red flags. Instead, the dream of having a programmer that can get month-long projects done in three days is too sweet too ignore. It's ironic that his downfall was giving in to drugs, which provide short term gains at long term costs -- the company was guilty of the same, with Arthur as their drug

</comment><comment><USER18> The first example read like _the employee was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, so we fired him_. Ouch. Try to be supportive and help at least once. Then reconsider. Else, the jerk is on you.

<comment><USER19> Not only that, but bipolar disorder is a _protected class_ under the ADA. Drug addiction not so much. But that's why your company has mental health included in its health plan.

It does, doesn't it?

Sheesh.</comment></comment>


What Should I Do With My Life? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.agentpronto.com/post/3786111825/what-should-i-do-with-my-life

<comment><USER2> Great post! I get annoyed with the "happiness" meme that seems to be so pervasive these days and this post hits the nail on the head. Happiness is the pursuit of happiness.</comment>


First Freely Available DNA Compiler  - <AUTHOR> http://www.genomecompiler.com/ This is a pretty powerful application which allows the user to drag and drop known genes and modify existing ones.  The company is making its money by producing the DNA sequences that people order through the application. <comment><USER2> Hi, this is Omri (Genome Compiler CEO) - thanks for the share!

For more info contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Sprints, marathons and root canals - <AUTHOR> https://gojko.net/2018/08/30/sprints-marathons-root-canals.html <comment><USER2> The hike is my favorite metaphor for sustainable product development: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17880953](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17880953)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm going to read the article but first my two cents: you should refactor every story. Even if it's just a small thing like moving a method to a new class. Even if it's not related to the story but you just noticed it while navigating the code base.

</comment><comment><USER4> If your team isn't delivering on weekly sprints something is wrong. Perhaps you are over committing. If you are resorting to two week springs to forgo the useless double hour loss of the sprint plan / follow up demo, then sure, I get it.

In any of the two above cases it sounds like you have a weak team on your hands. When you push to treat the subject like a marathon it makes the business people nervous.

When you are on an incremental weekly delivery cycle, and things are late, it is usually only late by one or two of those weekly cycles. BUT, If things are late on a "marathon cycle" they are usually late by a "marathon length".

You sort of have to keep in mind that there's a rather large reason that there was a push by the business people to force faster cycles. You and your team are expensive. Weekly or bi-weekly goals show your accounting department that they are receiving assets.

<comment><USER5> There are types of work where you may deliver nothing for months. I think the sprint idea mainly works for well understood tasks where there are no surprises. I often work on stuff where I can only report failure for weeks or months until it hopefully works.

<comment><USER6> Can you please elaborate somewhat on the nature of these projects? I'd like to understand what it is about the work that makes it difficult to get interim results.

<comment><USER5> For example I have worked on a way to launch a process in Windows with certain privileges from a service. It's a little unusual but important for the way our software works and right now the lack of this capability creates the need for a lot of clunky workarounds. Based on my reading of some Windows APIs I suspected we could make this work but it took 12 weeks to actually make it work. There was no guarantee of success either and there were no intermediate results.

<comment><USER6> Great example, thank you. Sounds like you had a fun 12 weeks :-).

<comment><USER5> I would call it a roller coaster :) with going back and forth from "why the hell did I sign up for this?" To "hey this may really work".

I always tell people that any good project has to have a time of deep depression where you deeply regret getting into it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Feedback for My Startup - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
I have been living in Japan for a few years now and have been helping out all my foreign friends finding a good place to visit and I've noticed that most of their complaints revolve around the language and location.
Example, they couldn't understand the description of a statue or the historical story behind a temple, this can be solved by hiring a guide, but they can be pretty expensive.
Since I love podcast and love to travel while listening to it so why not build an app for that, although it's still under development, would love to hear what your thoughts are.
Below is the site and if you scroll down you'll find the feedback form, it wouldn't take more than 5 min! https://travel-pod.firebaseapp.com/
Thank you, I appreciate it! <comment><USER2> It's a content driven concept. I visited the website. Right now, it does not have interesting content. Interesting content is the hard part.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the comment, yes podcast will largely depend on the content, but if the platform is interesting enough maybe it can attract a good content creator.</comment></comment>


Boston policemen complain about new plan to watch their movements - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/boston-police-set-to-track-its-own-patrol-cars-via-gps-to-improve-dispatching/ <comment><USER2> This makes me really wary of ever gaining the attention of a police officer in Boston. Police car GPS tracking technology is surely coming to my state (after all, the city buses already have it), and it will be welcome here. Minnesota peace officer vehicle dashboard camera videos are often used in investigations, including investigations of officer misconduct, and everyone expects the video to be available any time a police vehicle is involved in an interaction with the public. It has been mandatory in my state since the 1980s for all custodial interrogations by police to be videotaped from beginning to end, and the videotapes can become part of the court record any time police conduct in a case is in dispute.

Law enforcement is better when law enforcement officers are subject to the law. It's really that simple. If we know what police officers are doing, we know whether or not they are doing their taxpayer-funded jobs and whether accusations against them are true or false. Every law-abiding police officer should be glad to be on record about what happened while on patrol.

<comment><USER3> >>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.<< I don't agree with this statement, however I do feel that someone who is being paid to do a job slips into a slightly different category. It's not that I feel an employer should be able to watch those on the clock, but the relationship with privacy changes. And when the employee is in a job which includes monitoring of, let alone policing of behaviour - absolutely monitoring is appropriate. How else do you resolve the he said, she said situation?

<comment><USER4> Indeed, that statement only makes sense in a world that is maximally accepting, tolerant, forgiving, and fair-minded.

That is not our world, not by a long shot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Resident of a town near Boston here: I'm fully in favor of a _Halting State_- style mandatory lifecam on every on-duty police officer.

It won't solve police abuses, but it will do more to help than anything else I can think of that doesn't involve the much harder problem of changing police culture.

<comment><USER6> I agree wholeheartedly. Pilot programs, while not definitive, have shown drastic reductions in complaints against officers, as well as use of force:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video- ca...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for- police-officers.html?pagewanted=all)

<comment><USER7> Honestly, it seems like a really positive thing for the "good cops" out there too. No more "he said, she said" complaints.

Of course, if these tapes get conveniently "lost" that presents another set of problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "What's the logic to putting in such a tracking system? It lets dispatchers know where officers are in real time rather than having them wait for a response via radio. Unsurprisingly, some cops don't like the new change."

I'm baffled that this doesn't exist already. This article feels like it's 20 years old.

<comment><USER9> I was thinking the same thing. Kinda shocked this isn't standard practice since GPS came to public use in the first place.

Now, of course, we'll have to wait and see whether GPS data would also develop a habit of disappearing along with dash-cam footage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm confused why the ACLU is objecting to this. It seems like having police be trackable by their own departments _while on duty_ should present absolutely no privacy concern. And, for what it's worth, I think it's a good idea. At the very least, it will give police departments more data about what their officers are actually doing, and maybe it will prevent a few abuses of power.

I'd agree with the ACLU that this would be totally unconscionable if we were talking about tracking them 24/7, but that's clearly not the intent here.

<comment><USER11> The argument that I have heard so far is that up until this point, when police enter a house and make an arrest, the jury doesn't see the accused until his lawyer gets to clean him up, put him in a suit, and get him to shut up. With ubiquitous cameras, the jury will now see the accused and his residence and will have _that_ as their first impression of him.

<comment><USER7> I imagine that, if necessary, the accused's lawyer could argue that showing such footage would be unduly prejudicial. This would preclude the jury from ever seeing it (unless its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact).

<comment><USER12> Such a video would be utterly irrelevant in most cases anyway. If you're in and out to arrest someone on a warrant, the actual events of that arrest have nothing to do with the reason they're being arrested, and would almost never come up in a trial to begin with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > _Departments are going to have to confront the chilling effect this > surveillance might have on police behavior._

Honest question - what _bona fide_ police activity could be chilled by GPS tracking their cruisers?

<comment><USER14> How about your boss tells you to patrol a stop sign all day and count the number of rolling stops vs. full stops. Since you know your cruiser is GPS tracked, you're concerned being seen not moving for 8 hours.

<comment><USER12> First of all, no one would be assigned on such a contrived detail. Even if they were, they would not likely be there for 8 hours as there are mandatory breaks. And even if they were there for 8 hours, dispatch would know they would be out on a detail at that intersection all day, and would be periodically status checked to make sure they were still alive. And finally, what in the hell would be the problem with being tracked as being _exactly where they are supposed to be_?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am absolutely shocked. Postal vans, delivery trucks and armoured vehicles that deliver money to banks and stores all have GPS trackers fitted to them, heck even most taxi companies have fitted GPS trackers to their vehicles. What is the big deal? It means that a dispatcher can accurately see how far away a police officer is from a call for help. This could save lives and all the while keep some police honest.

Imagine you call 911, the dispatcher immediately sees your location based on your phone number and then based on what service you need, dispatches the nearest police car to you if there is one nearby as opposed to putting out a call over outdated radio technology.

Sounds like a case of police being misguided as to what the motivation is behind such a move. If delivery companies and mail services use the same technology for efficiency and estimates on arrivals, why shouldn't the police?

</comment><comment><USER16> _"If I take my cruiser and I meet [reluctant witnesses] to talk, eventually they can follow me and say, 'Why were you in a back dark street for 45 minutes?'_

What's this guy mean? Does he currently spend time meeting witnesses that his department doesn't know about and wouldn't approve of if they did, or that he somehow needs to keep secret from the rest of the department?

<comment><USER17> what if there are corrupt cops in your department and they review your cars GPS logs?

<comment><USER16> Then when you anonymously speak to a newspaper you might as well say that, right? Unless he assumes everyone already knows that police officers can't trust each other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am with others, I am surprised it took this long. This actually is safer for officers out by themselves.

</comment><comment><USER19> Anecdote from back in the day (well late 90's). A friend I had at school invited me to hang out with one of his "hacker" friends. This guy was into carding and other crap. Anyway, he lived in a small town. So somehow he managed to build small transmitters and attached them to bottom of a few local police cruisers. When those would get closer he got a blinking light on his receiver. Don't know how true it was, I was pretty young, but thought it an interesting idea.

Courts in many instances agreed that one doesn't need an warrant since the movement of one's car is public. Can the same logic be applied to police cars then?

Some countries don't let you advertise the location of speed traps. So radio stations there would for example warn drivers of cars with flashing lights and people in uniform blasting beams of microwave energy at oncoming cars.

</comment><comment><USER20> Watch the watchers.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is a good first step, but people authorized by the government to kill citizens at their discretion should be monitored intensively every second that they're on duty. Something as light-handed as GPS tracking on their vehicles, and they're complaining about it? That's something that would worry me if I was deeply corrupt, so it's telling that the Boston PD is complaining.

<comment><USER22> Police officers are NOT authorized to kill people. They have a right to self defence just like you or I. The state does give them special powers, but they are only justified to kill someone when it is in defence of themselves or others, however their job often puts them in such situations.

<comment><USER21> This[1] was considered to be a valid use of deadly force. Calling it self defense is a huge stretch, it was basically execution for failing to follow police orders. [1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/california- poli...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/california-police-kill- boy-rifle)

<comment><USER22> It's the difference between ethics (codified laws) and morals (societies implicit laws). Society (in aggregate through our elected officials) accepts that as self defence for a police officer. Our laws could likely be used to prosecute him for murder (if the society that elected the prosecutor believed he should be).

* I am giving a perspective from how these systems _do_ work, not how they _should_ work in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> SWEET IRONY! OH IT TASTES SO SWEEEEEEET!!!!!!

</comment><comment><USER24> The very fact that the policemen complain should make it mandatory. Anything they oppose, they oppose for a reason, and there's really only one conclusion - that the cops would rather hide their movements from those paying them. Google glass will likely make this moot since the other side of public contact will be recorded. People that carry guns and with alarming regularity kill people for the worst reasons should be subject to way more scrutiny than other employes and practically everyone is on camera all day these days. Cops should wear Google Glass and the video streamed to a vault inaccessible to the cops, to be pulled when needed for court (by a third party)

</comment><comment><USER25> Why, do they have something to hide?

Also, if they're doing things they don't want other people to know, maybe they shouldn't be doing those things in the first place.

Or something.

</comment><comment><USER26> This should not be controversial. Delivery and freight trucks and numerous other kinds of commercial vehicles get GPS monitored.

Police in cruisers are equipped with rifles, shotguns, one or more pistols, ammunition for all these firearms, plus a Taser, mace, etc. and it's NOT tracked?

</comment><comment><USER27> Why do they only want to track the policemen and not the policewomen?

<comment><USER28> The article doesn't mention gender.

<comment><USER27> Try reading the title of the article.

<comment><USER29> Policemen has meant "a member of a police force", regardless if that person is a man or woman, for ages immemorial.

Policeperson, OTOH, is a BS politically correct neologism.

(And who says it stops there? One can conceive of cops --men, women, LGBT etc--, not appreciating being identified as "persons" thus protesting the "policeperson" name too).

The whole discussion is completely infantile, pedantic and not worthy of HN time.

<comment><USER27> In the UK the correct term is "police officer". Using the term policeman is gender specific.

<comment><USER29> The internet is not located in the UK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I hate to say this but:

"first they came for the communists, I didn't ck.plain because I wasn't a communist..."

I don't want them to come for me. Cameras are one thing, it cuts both ways. This is different. (quote: [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...))

</comment><comment><USER31> Perhaps all Boston residents should carry GPS? For public safety of course.

Of course, to disallow people from removing such device and defeating the public safety effectiveness of this measure, the device would be implanted surgically.

And to allow for the identification of bodies, there should be several, just in case a limb gets lost, or a bullet destroy one...

The procedure should be painless (relatively) and should be covered by the Affordable Care Act (we think, we haven't really read the law), so residents that resist such measures could be deemed troublemakers and put into a government database such as the no-fly list, and other such lists, for possible rounding up at the first sign of trouble.

All in the name of public safety, of course.

Of course.

<comment><USER18> I as an individual don't have the power to stop, detain, and imprison someone. I don't have a "license to kill".

Putting GPS on cars that are paid for by the taxpayer and are used by people with more power than a regular citizen is hardly some far reaching nanny state, it is just good practice.

<comment><USER32> > Putting GPS on cars that are paid for by the taxpayer and are used by people > with more power than a regular citizen is hardly some far reaching nanny > state, it is just good practice.

I'd go further and say that it's quite the opposite of a nanny state (or really, a surveillance state). I don't understand where chris_mahan is coming from, as this policy seems to allow the citizenry oversight over the government, instead of the other way around.

<comment><USER31> My argument is that first the police, then firefighters. Then teachers, then schoolchildren, then all government vehicles, then all government administrators, then all government workers, then a few major corporations, then all major corporations, then small businesses, then all businesses, then students in college, then library patrons, buss-pass holders, then ex- convicts, then children, then people collecting unemployment, then people who are receiving disability payments, then retirees, then... Did I miss anyone?

The slippery slope is called slippery _because_ it is slippery...

<comment><USER33> My confusion is that you think there's a slope here to slip down. As mentioned in another comment, the police really are exceptional in both power and responsibility. As stated in a (far) above comment, this actually is a protection for the officer as well. Remember that they are first responders for evidence, and if they do their job well the video evidence will only bolster their credibility. And if not, it will only empower victims of abuse.

None of the other groups have so much responsibility and power where trust is so critical to their functioning.

I've is slippery, too, and it can take you in any direction you fall: how far are you willing to compromise a lack of oversight?

<comment><USER33> Where "I've" is an example of the sloppiness led from excessive trust in auto- correct. Should be "Ice", a word I clearly slipped up on.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Drinking While Pregnant: An Inconvenient Truth - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/style/drinking-while-pregnant.html <comment><USER2> This reads like a condescending, "don't drink while pregnant, mkay?" (that's a southpark reference [0]).

If the doctor wanted to be more helpful, she'd point out why alcohol is so seductive for people -- male or female / pregnant or non-pregnant -- with metabolic problems: "Alcohol is a viable a substitute for carbohydrates for feeding nerve cells. Ethanol -> acetate -> ATP. Some research was published a few years ago about how the brains of heavy drinkers switch to running on acetate: [...]" [1]

It's not enough to tell women they shouldn't drink while pregnant: medical practitioners need to use the excellent tools and understandings they have to help people sober up.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Garrison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Garrison) / [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wJXBUfcIOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wJXBUfcIOE)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14085230](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14085230)</comment>


Ask HN: Asp.NET MVC3 tutorial like Learn Rails by Example - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone, for work I'm going to be using C# and the .NET MVC 3 framework. I have some experience with Python, Ruby, and RoR and working on Linux but not much experience developing on the Windows stack.
I got provided a copy of Visual Studio 2010 Professional am going through the tutorials on asp.net but am wondering if there is a place or a book where I can really learn about the .NET MVC framework.
If I wasn't clear I'm happy to explain further! Thanks! <comment><USER2> Also you may want to post this on <http://stackoverflow.com>, there are a lot of active .NET programmers over there that could point you to better resources, and probably answer questions that you may have when you get started.

A great pay-for resource is <http://www.pluralsight-training.net>. They have beginner courses for ASP.NET and everything surrounding it: [http://www.pluralsight- training.net/microsoft/Courses/TableO...](http://www.pluralsight- training.net/microsoft/Courses/TableOfContents?courseName=aspdotnet- mvc3-intro)

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://www.sharparchitecture.net/> <http://whiteboardchat.codeplex.com/> <http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials>

If you have a Safari Online membership, there are a number of books that guide you through asp.net just like the Rails Tutorial.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://nerddinnerbook.s3.amazonaws.com/Intro.htm> <http://nerddinner.codeplex.com/releases/view/45647>

I heard that this is being updated for ASP.NET MVC 3, but the links should be good enough for starting

</comment><comment><USER5> Tekpub has a bunch of good videos for free, including an awesome series on ASP.NET MVC. It's a little old (MVC 2) but it's great for the fundamentals.

<http://tekpub.com/channels/free></comment>